I could accept this, although it's not the hard truth yet. But doing is not equal to earning money. If you do more while being employed by someone else, the benefits are reaped by your employer. You only get the expectation to do more. Also, I don't believe that businesses can expand infinitely, so the employment market might not be strictly a zero sum game, it's also not an infinite sum game. Which means the competition in the workforce rises and salaries fall.

Alternatively, you would switch to be self-employed, basically starting your own business. This is what actually requires wealth (and also connections, entrepreneur acumen and ultimately desire to do business). Saying "generational wealth" was perhaps a bit of an overtone. You could substitute some part of the wealth with other factors. But ultimately, the more money you have, the more you can spend on tokens (and other things like marketing too, but that was true before ai as well) to drive your business forward.

> It might be paid worse of lower status but, to me, being useful is the whole point.

This might sound good if you live in a country with strong social support, and believe it's going to continue doing so for your lifetime. Or alternatively, that you don't have any people that depend on you and you don't value your health or physical comfort. But most people ultimately work for money, because the base necessities (food, shelter, security, healthcare) and quality of life enhancers (education) cost a lot of money, and some are growing in cost much quicker than the salaries.

But, even if I had generational wealth behind me to be able to leverage the AI to my advantage, I still see a lot of cons in the way cheap content generation worsens the world around me: facilitating fraud, political shilling, disrupting online conversations (now everyone just sends bot summaries to each other). In a way, I feel a similar change that from the "pre-facebook" Internet to the "pre-chatgpt" Internet that happened in the early 10s.

The job is going to be much less fun, yes, but I won't have to learn from scratch and compete with young people in a different area (and which I will enjoy less, most likely). So, if anything slop gives me hope.

I wonder, what prevents better support for 'regular' apps? Are they using some windows API that is hard to implement in Linux?

I would only be happy if in the end the author turns out to be right.

But as the things stand right now, I can see a significant boost to my own productivity, which leads me to believe that fewer people are going to be needed.

I have been using emacs for around 7 years, but it never worked for me as the main editor, it just sucked too bad compared to IDE-like features of other editors and actual IDEs. So I only used it for org-mode, doing an attempt to use it for something else every couple of years.

I'm currently in the process of trying this again, and I have to say things feel very different this time. By adding native tree-sitter and LSP support, the IDE-like features are outsourced to where they should be done. It wasn't perfect, but I had issues of the same degree or worse with other editors. A proprietary IDE still would beat it in stability and features, but the experience is _crazy good_ for free software.

What I like the most is the hacker mentality it encourages. When I see something I don't like, I don't go like "I wish they did it differently", I ask "well how do I change that?".

The only thing that feels truly outdated is single-threaded nature and blocking UI when long-running operation (like an update) is happening. And maybe non-smooth scroll (there is a package but it makes text jump).

With AI, the future seems just so much worse for me. I feel that productivity boost will not benefit me in any way (apart from some distant trickle down dream). I expect the outsource, and remote work in general to be impacted negatively the most. Maybe there's going to be some defensive measures to protect domestic specialists, but that wouldn't apply to me anyway unless I relocate (and probably acquire citizenship).

>Is your company hiring more/ have they stopped hiring software engineers

Stopped hiring completely and reduced workforce, but the reasons stated were financial, not AI.

>Is the management team putting more pressure to get more things done

with less workforce, there is naturally more work to do. But I can't say there is a change in pressure, and no one forces AI upon you.

I keep seeing the same point that argues against how "not fun, depressing, worse a has gotten these days". The most recent incarnation of that is how programming with AI feels worse than programming on your own.

I don't think the problem is inability to find a way to derive fun, the way you could previously. The problem is deriving fun while still getting paid for it.

To reiterate on the web-dev, you probably can make it fun again, given that you were able to have fun with it previously. But it probably will have to be done in your spare time after job.

There is a curious thing with this "branch", I'm not sure if it's the same in the Celtic one. The last time I talked to people researching this, I was told that: a. The findings are mostly unique, it's hard to find two copies of the same coin. Sometimes obverse of one coin could be found on another, but reverses don't match. b. These coins are not cast, they are minted through "hammering", which requires a stamp. However, not a single stamp has been found so far. A much easier way to make currency out of existing one would be to just slap existing coin into some clay, make a casting mold and just pour molten metal into it.

This of course is more of a curiosity/rumor level, I don't have any qualifications to back it up.

[1]: http://barbarous-imitations.narod.ru/ (apologize for a .ru website, but it's the best catalogue to my knowledge.)

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernyakhov_culture

Similarly here, I can't understand for example _who_ is the owner. Is it a stack frame? Why would a stack frame want to move ownership to its callee, when by the nature of LIFO the callee stack will always be destroyed first, so there is no danger in hanging to it until callee returns. Is it for optimization, so that we can get rid of the object sooner? Could owner be something else than a stack frame? Why can mutable reference be only handed out once? If I'm only using a single thread, one function is guaranteed to finish before the other starts, so what is the harm in handing mutable references to both? Just slap my hands when I'm actually using multiple threads.

Of course, there are reasons for all of these things and they probably are not even that hard to understand. Somehow, every time I want to get into Rust I start chasing these things and give up a bit later.

It won't propagate to the third-party libraries, yes. But then again, why don't they just provide an explicit way of passing values instead of hiding them in the context?

As I understand they propose to pass the data explicitly, like a struct with fields for all possible request-scoped data.

I personally don't like context for value passing either, as it is easy to abuse in a way that it becomes part of the API: the callee is expecting something from the caller but there is no static check that makes sure it happens. Something like passing an argument in a dictionary instead of using parameters.

However, for "optional" data whose presence is not required for the behavior of the call, it should be fine. That sort of discipline has to be enforced on the human level, unfortunately.

Unfortunately, my feelings tell me otherwise. What is it that we humans are better at? Is it a chore of managing people, sitting on meetings and aligning stakeholders' interests? Feels to me more like a politician job than an engineering.

I hate to say it as a linux fan, but if battery life was any important I would buy a mac. I have mac pro 2017 which is probably of the same age, if not older, and the battery life is just so much better.

OCaml was everything opposite. I made two Ocaml tours in recent years, and both times it literally just worked (tm). Granted, I've been using it less than haskell, but the experience of starting out is just heaven and earth. The only issue I have with ocaml tooling is that ideally I'd like to run the language server for real-time hints from the compiler, but also be able to invoke my program interactively. Unfortunately it seems you either have to run "dune build watch", or you can build and run, but not both as there is some locking happening.

As far as the languages themselves go, I'd say haskell is more "fun", in a way that it has a lot of features, and it reads a lot nicer (unless it's point-free code). Monads are pretty fun, although when I finally got through Monad transformers I started feeling "I wish we had no monads tbh" Ocaml feels much more barebone, syntactically less appealing and somewhat clunky. On the other hand there is a kind of spartan appeal to it.

Honestly, I like both of the languages a lot and wish for them to continue their development. I can certainly see myself using both in the future.

Another thing I bought which I regret is a used system76 laptop. I originally planned to use it during said outages, but battery life is very far from what I expected (I guess it being old and me using linux doesn't help too).