A non-tech friend of mine who's writing a book uses it to get feedback on his writing. He's gotten pretty good at crafting prompts to get it to be fairly objective.

Another non-tech friend used it to do a lot of journaling and processing after a recent breakup.

A non-techy friend who happens to work in tech uses it to make presentations at work.

Another non-techy friend of mine who works at a tech startup uses it to browse LinkedIn and find people she's searching for.

Correcting someone who believes an old phenomenon is a new phenomenon, is not the same as giving up and saying we should do nothing about said phenomenon. In fact, understanding something is the first and most important step to changing it, especially a pattern or a habit.

But this isn't a unique flaw for Tailwind. I've been coding with CSS since the late '90s and seen plenty of people throw yet-another-div onto the DOM just to have an element to hang their classes on. Done so myself plenty of times, too.

People have been complaining about div soup for years and years before Tailwind ever came along.

Plus I'm coding with Tailwind now, and almost never think about my classes before my HTML. Nothing about Tailwind in particular encourages you to do so. So I'm quite confused how this is a unique Tailwind flaw.

"You're on the side of the " should rarely (if ever) be a valid rebuttal.

Obviously, it's one thing to be a commander ordering an attack, vs a soldier firing the weapon, vs starting the company to make the weapon, vs being a supplier to the weapons company, vs being an employee at the manufacturer, etc.

What about working for a president who is going to inevitably order hundreds if not thousands murdered? Or voting for said president?

What about paying taxes, knowing those tax dollars will go to missiles and guns used to murder?

(This isn't a criticism of your worldview, by the way. I'm just genuinely curious about how others draw these lines.)

Anyway, my point isn't about predicting historical or cultural changes at some hugely complex scale. My point is that it's simple and predictable that useful new technology is most hated when it's new, but eventually tends to be adopted and embraced and normalized when it's had some time. That is, assuming it's affordable and truly useful.

If you want to bet against that happening in this case because you believe culture can't be predicted, then I would gladly take that bet, any amount of $ you want to wager, and let's meet back here in 5 years.

Sure, but has that ever happened to a technology that was useful, convenient, affordable, etc.? Definitely gotta be rare. I think the utility tends to win in the end.

> But either way, I'm talking about *the present* which is the time we all live in.

Yeah that's why I didn't disagree with you. I think you're right about the present. But I wouldn't call my response irrelevant. It's pretty normal in a conversation to carry things forward and respond with your own thoughts.

The post doesn't even say "it's different from X". It just says "it's unfashionable," with no comparison or mention of history at all, as if this is the first time a new technology has ever been unfashionable immediately after its release.

> Just make your argument on its own terms.

I feel like my argument is obvious? The "unfashionable" period for useful-but-jarringly-new consumer-facing technology is common, predictable, and short-lived.

- Cars (expensive toys for the rich that endangered normal ppl and spooked horses)

- Recorded music (similar complaints about it not supporting artists)

- Bicycles (commonly called the devil's work)

- Novels (morally dangerous)

- Headphones / Sony Walkman (anti-social)

I remember when chatting online was nerdy, anti-social, and uncool. Now celebrities casually talk about sliding into each other's DMs.

The initial "it's unfashionable" backlash to new, useful, and threatening technology has been so repetitive and predictable throughout history that it's almost passe now. Most people aren't students of history of course, so history will repeat itself.

But that also means the second act will repeat, not just the first act. And the useful technology will almost certainly become fashionable and accepted once it's more commonplace.

It's impractical to edit your AI-generated writing to put it in your own voice? People have been writing unique stuff for millennia.

But I do have somewhat of a problem with unedited text. Personally, I even take the time to edit my HN comments.

And, for the same reason I'd have a problem watching the same episode of the same show every day, I have a problem with reading text that feels like a super derivative clone of tons of other writing. Which is usually what you get when you don't edit your AI-generated text.

I'm surprised people aren't taking the time to edit this very specific kind of phrasing out of their writing. It's such a common AI tell now that, even when writing by hand, I'd just avoid it entirely.

Then again, I hated that LLMs co-opted the em-dash, and I refuse to stop using it, so I suppose I get it.

I don't think having a meaningful job comes at a huge premium, though:

1. I don't think it's true that if you don't work, you'll starve to death. At least, not in the west. You won't have the high quality things compared to your peers, but the state will provide you with housing, food, and resources, so long as you're psychologically capable of using them.

2. But even so, is there any other creature on earth that doesn't have to do some sort of work so it won't starve to death? Even hunter gatherers had to hunt, forage, raise kids, make tools, or otherwise contribute to their tribes, in an endless grind, just to get enough calories to survive.

3. And that doesn't seem… wrong? Many of us enjoy an incredible abundance of options for food, shelter, safety, entertainment, etc., produced by our peers in our tribes and communities. Why shouldn't we have to contribute as well if we want to partake?

4. The idea that "meaning" comes at a premium is the story I want to contradict. It's just that: a story. I know someone who delivers the mail. He loves delivering mail. He feels a ton of meaning. He says, "Yeah there's a lot of junk, but without me, people wouldn't get their wedding invitations. And they wouldn't get their bills paid." Most jobs contribute something, and contribution is meaning. The sad thing to me is we have so many voices telling everyone, "Your job is meaningless!" that people are starting to believe it, and they're ignoring the lives that their work touches.