But the variation in horsepower is still there. It's not like cars with 300 HP are forbidden in Germany. It's just that they need to fit in the continuum. The 300HP BMW is the CEO's car, and its existence is justified by the fact that the other top managers drive the 200HP version which is otherwise almost the exact same car, which are in turn justified by the fact that the middle managers drive the 120HP version, and if you're a new-hire individual contributor then anything more than 90HP would cause a scandal if word got out. (I'm painting a mental picture here; obviously not making a universal claim).

I think that culture is part of the reason why a $30k electric pickup truck would ruffle feathers so much, and it's a particularly stupid reason, but I think it's real.

The "Kastenwagen" example from above escapes that calculus by clearly being something that stands completely outside of any established continuum of this kind. The rare Ford Mustang or imported Dodge RAM that you sometimes see in Germany is similarly socially/politically acceptable on the grounds that it would either be expensive as hell, or a car buff's hobby. Both of those cases mean the owner has duly paid for their ticket to the high-horsepower social club (either financially, or by having a respectable hobby and putting in the work), whereas a $30k electric pickup that you can just buy would come across as "cheating the system".

Also: With something like a 75% market share that Chrome enjoys, I don't see how they can keep a straight face when complaining about the anticompetitive practices allowing a competitor to hold on to a 10% market share.

Who is the "Browser Choice Alliance" I thought to myself. One web search later:

> Our members: Midori, Opera, Vivaldi, Wavebox, Browserworks, and, ... wait for it ...

> Chrome.

If Google no longer sends users to websites for free on organics, the world will have to figure out some mechanism whereby Google pays site owners for putting the information on the web in the first place. Where will that money come from?

If it's ads, the AI experience is a “lies engine” where advertisers get to pick which lies the AI tells. Not sure what kinds of people would show up for that experience. Probably the same kind who watch home shopping TV. I would venture to guess that there will be a ceiling in the advertising value of that property. Or the AI interacts with people in good faith. But then, if I'm an advertiser, how do I get my lies into the world? “We will tell your lie, only if it's a truth” doesn't work because, as an advertiser, I understand that the truth about me already gets spoken, and I don't need to pay a dime for that.

You can run an argument that people can tell ads from organics on the current SERP, and you can calibrate how much of each there should be. But you can't really “calibrate” the amount and level of the lying in the AI to where it's just enough so that people will show up, but not so much that there's no value for advertisers. You can't have little boxes either, where the AI is like “having told you the truth, I want you to also pay attention to this lie that someone paid me to tell you: …”

Is Google really saying: “Hey, we're the lion's share of the advertising market right now. But, because we kind of like these newfangled AI things, we're going to just vacate that spot to whoever. Instead, we will turn ourselves into a pre-product-market-fit company. Maybe at some point over the next 10 years, we're going to be able to tell you how we might actually monetize ourselves. Stay toooooned.”

The reason why AI is a better experience than the web right now, is because we have pre-enshittification AI and post-enshittification web. What will the whole thing look like, after enshittification is through with AI?

People complaining about investors throwing stupid sums of money at stupid or trivial things unrelated (or only marginally related) to AI? ...sounds to me like the first glimpse of hope I have come across in this industry for half a decade.

I came here to say precisely that. I was on svn before git was a thing, and I've never moved off it for any projects where I get to decide such things.

To a first approximation, one could say that distributed version control is a problem nobody ever had, and nobody ever intends to have. (GitHub is the world's centralized monorepo.)

Yet, distributed version control is the majority of the reason why git's mental model is so overcomplicated.

Moving to SF is only an option for the rich and privileged. Saying no to a solid paycheck that comes with a 40-hour workweek to make space for randomness is for the rich and privileged. Some of us are born rich and privileged, some are not. Some of us are born as extroverts, some as introverts. For some of us, putting off-hours to use for doing more work-related stuff ends up working out, for others it wreaks havoc on our ability to have hobbies, social lives, and families and is a surefire way to destroy happiness (and might still not help our careers).

"Everyone needs to move to SF and start prioritizing hustling over staring at their editors and compilers" is terrible advice. For a sizeable proportion of people it's not an option. For a sizeable proportion of people it's a surefire way to destroy their lives.

The second reason why I take issue with that line is, as I've said, the fact that few employers allow employees time "on the clock" to do anything at all that's away from screens, and saying "do it in your spare time, then" is adding insult to injury. I have a rich social life, hobbies, and am raising a family. What I'm observing is that this is not helping my career one bit, and that's perfectly fine. Not everything in life needs to be in service of one's career. But this is also the reason, why I do not have time, off the clock, to attend meetups and events.

The third thing I would notice is that it helps your career (again, speaking from a "code monkey" perspective here), less than you'd think. What is going to come out of the chance encounters at meetups and events? Maybe someone wants to hire you. Maybe someone wants to work with you more informally. If you sell your time in 40-hour-per-week blocks, none of this is a business opportunity you can capitalize on. If you're on a job, you've already sold your 40-hour-block, and have nothing left to transact with. If you're off a job, you need a new one, and you need it now, so you need to be more transactionally-minded than just investing time into chance encounters.

Now, there is a separate consideration that may enter into career planning, namely that one might try to evade the 40-hour-per-week payrolled-employee trap, and try to prioritize maximizing hourly rate over yearly compensation and do freelancing. But this sort of consideration, in my mind, is not properly the domain of career advice. Career advice is: "Here is some mistakes you should avoid. Avoiding them is always an option, no matter what your circumstances are, and by avoiding them, you will always have better outcomes." This is not that: It is simply not the case, that everyone can and should be a freelancer.

2FA. I was a smartphone hold-out for longer than anyone I know, but banks mandating 2FA with no options for doing it in a standards-compliant way or any way that doesn't involve the app stores was what finally broke my resistance.