It reminds me of (for the pedants out there, I'm not saying it's equivalent to) the consume product meme. "Don't ask questions, just complete assignment and then get excited for next industry trend."

>I don’t know what the future of this industry will look like, and I don’t know who will benefit from it and I don’t think I’m alone with that. However I can only urge anyone who feels anger and looks for a villain right to instead remain curious instead. To be curious enough to understand what is changing, excited enough to experiment with it. And then, from what we learn, earn the right to decide when resistance is warranted and where to direct it.

Sounds pleasant and vaguely inspirational. Then you read it again and notice guy thinks I don't always have the RIGHT to DECIDE to RESIST.

Sourcehut is a subscription service with multiple tiers of access.

I think the different tiers are just for show, but I could imagine that if they felt there was a subset of projects they liked that were putting extra stress on their system they wouldn't be above differentiation at that point.

obv they're going to have content restriction, but there is a spectrum from "actually illegal" to "wonderful chaps whom I love but happen to disagree with philosophically." Slop coding is neither of those, but is closer to the latter than I'd expect a general purpose host to draw a line.

You're arguing your point by naming a technology that speculative fiction regularly foresees advancements in, and loves using in stories as the enabler of more intrusive state power.

More surveillance records, better processing and recall of those records are like THE THING when it comes to more law enforcement and passive coercion by the state.

There is honest to goodness disruptive tech that takes time for society to adapt to and reveal where state power wants to go. But those are the vast minority. I think it's a pasttime of industry to play ignorant to how their products will interplay with the government's obvious motivations.

I don't get why there are so many people who need Zitron to be wrong. It reminds me of back in the days when people still liked Elon and every criticism of him or Tesla must be a short-seller spreading lies to move the price.

I think it's pretty easy to slot Ed's predictions into your possibility space even if you're still betting on a different outcome being more likley. Something else is going on.

Why does everyone play the game where everything ought to be assumed above-board until someone painstakingly proves otherwise.

> To date, five manufacturers have pleaded guilty to their involvement in an international price-fixing conspiracy between July 1, 1998, and June 15, 2002, including Hynix, Infineon, Micron Technology, Samsung, and Elpida.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DRAM_industry_price_fixing

We are not the courts. The most reasonable and truth based position is operating with a fuzzy impression that most businesses are substantially more dodgy than their carefully manufactured PR releases are meant to portray themselves as.

And in this case, that includes acknowledging that a literal criminal conspiracy in well within the realm of possibility.

I think it behooves them for the public presentation of their issues to too much load. If they implemented load shedding and still had issues the follow-up questions would be less comfortable.

Looks like Amodi is laying the groundwork so he can re-run Eric Schmidt's "but it happened" playbook. Do whatever you can to make money, wait for the dust to settle and walk off into the sunset after one final "whoopie daisy, didn't mean to do that to you. sucks to suck."

Why did you choose extra pull requests as the division of work instead of building out a decent UI for reviewing/applying/reworking at the commit level? I assume there's some extra insight that made you ignore the mailing list "series of patches" workflow that inspired this whole thing and go with "series of series of patches" instead.

There are so many non-quantifiable properties to evaluate of the 'before' and 'after' codebases. Choices and preferences to be had about languages, language porting in general, and LLM coding.

After all that, pretend we could have a clear convincing distillation of the port and want to go apply the lessons learned. If someone doesn't get LLM porting results as good as Bun did, or it cost them substantially more in tokens, then they're "holding it wrong." If someone is underwhelmed by Bun's results, then it was just a proof of concept and the models have gotten so much better in the last 6 months anyway you can't compare.

Mostly in the opensource, or marketing-blog spaces. The detailed investigation and fix report was a favorite genre of blogpost. And if someone's bragging about the design of an enhancement, or investigating a bug, then the overall product isn't dead. They're (usually) not talking shit to anyone. It's the bug that's dead. Or security indecent that's over. Or a schedule milestone that's "dead and burred".

It's a 1 chili pepper level of spicy to use a slang term that relates to death. I'd never read it as hoping someone fails. I think people let the corpotalk center of the brain overreact to anything that's not couched in euphemism.

I don't think this statement has the effect you want it to have. You're not laying out the experience you're speaking from. You're just setting it up so that no matter how reasonable the next thing you say is, it will appear maximally arrogant and condescending.

I think is so ugly that I'm half tempted to chatgpt fact check this comment. It very well could have been a deliberate conspiracy to lie to the public and say it looks good to make some austerity go down easier.

I suspect the stance they described as one readers mistakenly took away from their previous article to in fact be their stance. Otherwise why dance around it so hard?