All these did not compare with the sheer effect of capitalism: let's concentrate the production, let's scale it so big that every worker will become a hyper-narrow specialist. You bet it's unsexy take today, but it was universally understood in Lenin's times that it's a path not possible/feasible to withdraw from. That's the one magic ingredient that seems absolutely required.

So, it was an anti-revolutionary policy. Which at that time of history worked as well as an anti-communist policy.

> Unsurprisingly the Soviet Union killed the kulak model and moved to collective farming[0], which was arguably actually communistic.

Soviet Union, whatever it had preached, implemented state capitalism - concentration of the means of production under a single owner.

It's important for me to use words precisely. If somebody implies, for example, that capitalism is the opposite of communism, that's just snatching the words and waving them like banners.

It seems non sequitur. This hypothetical scenario sounds like entrenching capitalism, because it would concentrate capital even more.

It would probably weaken democracy and weaken free market (esp. the job market), yes.

> society will collapse before then because of said breaking of capitalism itself

Or, maybe the society would continue to exist with even more inequality? And, of course, much changed from what it is today.

You validate my feelings. I always knew that at heart.

We have too much code - languages to program machines.

We need a new different language now.

A plan.md, written in what... legalese English? Really? Am I back in 1897? People committing that to vcs, sheesh...

Sticking a piece of steel between two wooden planks is not inherently evil. Until we declare it to be unethical in some settings, and codify a law against "breaking and entering".

Same with ads.

Having your code snatched and its copyright disregarded, to the benefit of some rando LLM vendor. People can just press "pause" and wait until they see whether they fuel something that brings joy to the world. (Which it might in the end. Or not.)

Yes, technically, but you've probably meant cruft here.

These are not toys. I want to make money. The customers want feature after feature, in a steady stream. It's bad business if the third or fourth feature takes ages. The longer stream, the better financially.

That the code "works" on any level is elementary, Watson, what must "work" is that stream of new features/pivots/redesigns/fixes flowing.

Sigh. Is there any LLM solution for HN reader to filter out all top-level commenters that hadn't RTFA? I don't need the (micro-)shitstorms that these people spawn, even if the general HN algo scores these as "interesting".

Uh oh. How does frequentist model define "belief" and "updating a belief"?

And "cost center" is a lie from Outsourcing Era, forget about it.

Lawyers can code in English, but it is not to layperson's advantage, is it?

And for example, if you prompt for something to frobnicate biweekly, there is no intelligence today, and there will never be, to extract from it whether you want the Turing machine to act twice a week or one per two weeks. It's a deficiency of language, not of intelligence.

   BATCH=yes    (default is no)

   --batch   (default is --no-batch)

Having two separate command names (one for human/llm, one for batch) sucks.

Having `-h` for human, like ls or df do, sucks slightly less, but it is still a backward-compatibility hack which leads to `alias` proliferation and makes human lifes worse.