I'm also skeptical that development velocity is so separate from all those other things (context, stakeholder alignment,etc). It's much easier to get actionable feedback when you have a prototype.

Technological progress is also societal progress. If we embraced degrowth in the 1800's (there was a ton of pollution back then, and a Malthusian belief in disaster!) we might not see slavery being abolished or women being able to vote.

The UK has less debt than the US and much better average health outcomes, while spending less on health per capita. This is just intellectually dishonest framing of how welfare systems work, ironically in a piece about comparative poverty.

First it should be said that this thread is primarily about decomissioning existing nuclear power plants. It makes enormous sense to keep operating those plants until we have a world like the one you describe, regardless of how much newer plants would cost.

But more importantly, your assumptions about the future are very optimistic. I'm sure the Germans also thought they were being very smart when they decided that nuke capex was not worth it because gas was so cheap and easily available, and then now we are finding out that this decision crippled their economy because it caused a dependency. In my opinion throwing all your chips into a technology that requires materials and production capacity you don't have, and in some cases doesn't even exist yet, is a real sucker's bet. All your rosy scenarios would fall apart in one second if China decides to stop selling batteries to you.

> The right question to ask after a vibe-coded prototype fails is not what did the AI do wrong. It is what did our process miss.

> That is a governance story, not a software story.

> The Question Is Not Adoption. It Is Readiness.

> The right question is diagnostic, not strategic.

I don't know if AI will fully replace programmers, but it has already replaced writers of this type of bullshit puff piece.

Mistral's stack already heavily relies on American cloud providers and they have tons of American investors, so its sovereignty angle is dubious anyway.

So, I guess we all have to hope that more money does not necessarily lead to a "victory" here.

I was promised 5x or 20x the amount of resources that the free tier would offer. I implicitly expected the same quality too, not some watered-down version of the product they allowed me to sample before committing to a subscription.

Sooner or later Anthropic will run out of VC money, yes. That's their problem, not mine. When I took an Uber while it was subsidized by venture capital, the driver did not drop me half way through my destination because they were having cash flow issues.

There is only so much you can do through "UX improvements" or some smart routing on the backend. Your flagship product is actively getting worse, and if users need to fiddle with hidden settings and keep track of GitHub issues every week they will start voting with their money.

However we are moving one step closer to complete inability for humans to understand the code, as there are likely 100x more developers with experience in Python than Rust. If humans are indeed going to be the bottleneck then perhaps this is inevitable, and languages fitted especially for LLMs will dominate.

I mean, it's just text, so it shouldn't be too taxing to store it. I agree it's hoarder mentality though :)

This doesn't seem to be the direction these guys are going though, it looks like they think Git should be more social or something.