This sounds like a strawman to me but I’m not well versed in feminism. Do you have examples? On the topic of science, isn’t the criticism more that women were largely ignored or misrepresented in scientific studies? This doesn’t have to be because the authors were “idiots”.

> Shaming individuals doesn't seem to be productive or helpful.

First, none of us have any power to "tax it more" so this is a dead end of discussion. Second, people have agency and we can hold them accountable socially for negative actions even if they are abiding by the current laws (or tax regime). This happens all the time, because laws don't fully align with morality in a culture. Suggesting that we should leave such things to the sole discretion of the economy and taxes describes a strange unhuman-like society that we don't live in.

This thread is about vibe coding _without_ looking at the code.

But read the same link from above: https://github.com/huseyinbabal/taws/blob/2ce4e24797f7f32a52.... LLMs leave temporal comments like "// Now do X", or "// Do X using the new Y", as responses to prompts like "Can you do X with Y instead?".

or below: "// Auto-refresh every 5 seconds (only in Normal mode)". I would guess this comment was during a response to a prompt like: "can you only auto-refresh in Normal mode?"

Sometimes there are tautological comments and sometimes not: https://github.com/huseyinbabal/taws/blob/2ce4e24797f7f32a52...

``` // Get log file path

let log_path = get_log_path(); ```

This is another signal to me that there is less human influence over the project.

No, none of these are a smoking gun. Also none of this means it was completely vibe coded. To me personally, the worrying part is that these patterns signal that perhaps human eyes were never on that section of the code, or at least the code was not considered carefully. For a toy app, who cares? For something that ingests your AWS creds, it's more of a red flag.

Edit: changed the language a bit to sound less sardonic. My comment is more about LLM signals than a judgment on LLM usage.

What you are describing is if we are on the right side of the curve. But is there any evidence that this is true?

When I read Sowell, someone who I imagine would be a champion for this cause, he cites the 1920s as his evidence that trickle-down works which doesn’t inspire confidence. If there is no modern evidence, why are we even entertaining this theory today?

IMO, a less presumptuous criticism would be phrased like "if you did X then benefits Y would happen", or "if you haven't, consider X", or even (the least presumptuous - make it a conversation!) "have you considered X?", rather than "you should do X".

How do you know that?

It's funny that the same party that likes to warn of "you will own nothing and be happy" is now defending economic policy that will decrease material wealth, but it's ok because it is "good for you" to practice having less.

What level of confidence do you have that the tariffs are a path to this outcome?

That's definitely happening, but there are other possible reasons. For example a good could be more efficiently grown or produced in a country because of geographical reasons.

Also, from a pragmatic standpoint, it is simply not the case that all wages and wealth across the countries of the world are equal. Maybe that could be a goal but is anyone talking about that? Either way, it does not follow that the workers in that country are necessarily exploited when paid lower wages compared to the importing country, unless we are using different definitions.

This is not to mention that untargeted tariffs can increase the cost of living _for no gain at all_. If Germany manufacturers some specialty tool (not with slave labor, I would hope!), and no US manufacturer wants to make it, then I suddenly have to pay X% more for no reason at all.

Define "cheap labor". Is any labor that is cheaper than American labor bad? If not, how are the tariffs differentiating between "bad" cheap labor and "good" cheap labor?

Let me see if I am following. The tariffs are ostensibly about spurring domestic industry so that American companies can flourish and we don’t have to pay tariffs on imports of foreign goods in the long term. Is that right? If so, then long term, aren’t we hoping that the “tariff funds” are small? But they are simultaneously supposed to supplement revenue to pay down debt too?

I’m not sure if I’m following, but a (let’s say) 20% cut to the value of an average retiree’s pension account will hurt much _more_ than the same cut to a diversified wealthy person. This is simply because poorer people are affected more by fixed costs. I don’t see where the populist angle comes in. Shouldn’t the populist angle be about targeting the “elite” specifically?

Wouldn’t this include average people’s pensions, IRAs, etc, too?