https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49333468

But I suppose they are the party of big business, not the party of business in general.

Which economies are already screwed up?

IMO it can’t ever be on par with the Industrial Revolution because AI can only really affect the information economy. Things people do with their hands/bodies have either already been automated or can’t be with current tech. If you’d asked people decades ago they might say no one will ever work in factories by 2026 because they’ll all be automated. It didn’t work out that way. I think AI will go the same way: absolutely game changing to some industries (of which software engineering will be one) but a great many will still survive with less dramatic changes.

If anything it might result in more focus on the human aspects. How many people out there earn their stripes putting together slide decks? In a world where an AI can put together the snazziest presentation you’ve ever seen in a heartbeat it’s going to matter more how you stand at the front of the room and present those slides than it does today.

It’s about data transmission. Being able to encode and decode in a type safe manner between different languages (and so, different platforms) is a goal that makes a lot of sense.

> If you do change your schema from time to time, you need testing between the two systems

Or you could just use a defined format that doesn’t require testing. I rarely use protobuf but I can see why people do. The guaranteed backwards compatibility is huge for people who can’t just publish a new web frontend at the drop of a hat.

If someone is struggling to afford a home, “you know there are much poorer people in Africa” isn’t a particularly helpful or useful response.

...no? The essay is literally titled "The Decade Ahead", its predictions have not come true in 2026.

> The AGI race has begun. We are building machines that can think and reason. By 2025/26, these machines will outpace many college graduates. By the end of the decade, they will be smarter than you or I; we will have superintelligence, in the true sense of the word

I'd argue even the 2025/26 part of that isn't true, though the "many" in "many college graduates" makes the claim very difficult to verify.

But even putting all that aside I think it's still a valuable evidence point when discussing "intellectual arrogance". No doubt this 25 year old is very smart when it comes to AI. But there's this belief that if someone is smart at one thing then they're surely smart at everything. Turns out "smart at AI" doesn't automatically translate to "can sensibly manage a $45bn fund".

I think that’s the key of it for me. Usually this criticism of Bluesky users is part of a justification to stay on Twitter. When the exact same problem exists on there, just with a different type of user.

I use Bluesky regularly and have a fine experience. Yes, there’s an irritating minority of users. But so goes any social network, Twitter especially. At least the owners of Bluesky aren’t espousing Great Replacement Theory…

You are projecting a lot on this imaginary Bluesky user. You’ve crafted an entire narrative in your head about how egotistical they were and how crushed they are at Twitter still being around. I don’t really know how to respond to creative fiction.

I'd disagree with that, I'd say its entire life is due to the shittifying of Twitter. People, like myself, sought to recreate the experience of what Twitter used to be like and (after trying and not being satisfied with Mastodon) it's the next best thing. The problem is that a social network of this kind relies on having a large enough population to feel "live" and Bluesky has never got there.

There have been glimmers of hope... during the NBA finals and the World Cup Bluesky felt like a genuine destination for live sports. But it might be too little too late.

Social media networks display different things to different people so it’s borderline impossible to know exactly what they’re even showing. That makes regulation extremely difficult.

More broadly, this perspective depresses me. I’m old enough to remember the promise of the internet when we first all got it: that it would democratise information and we’d be able to break free of the issues with traditional media. Fast forward to today and we’re asking “why shouldn’t the tech giants monetise hate speech?”. How far we’ve fallen.

The speed limit analogy I can sort of see if I squint and I think highlights the reason people buy Apple: they want simplicity in their life. They don't want to monitor the speed limit for every road they drive down, they just want to know that if they're driving they're doing so at the recommended speed and won't end up getting a ticket (or crash!) because of an unnecessary choice (speeding).

Of course if we extend the analogy further: if it's a car then the automobile industry is dominated by just two car manufacturers and they both exercise a level of control over what you can and cannot do with the car. And people need cars, so they make a choice between two suboptimal choices.

I was an Android enthusiast, bought a Nexus One the day it came out. Then a Nexus 4, then a 5. Did custom ROMs, the lot. Ended up switching to Apple for simplicity around messaging and FaceTime with family/friends. I haven't ever looked back, I can't say there's anything I miss. Except the notification system maybe.

Then not closely enough? The study adjusts for age, which is the core of OP’s criticism.