You're missing the point on a stupid technicality.

If I have more liquid and therefore more purchasing and capital power than you, I have access to more resources than you, and I am immediately in a position in which I can potentially exploit you (get you to labor to generate more resources in exchange for some of the capital I have, then retain most of all of the newly generated capital and production from your labor for myself while paying you a fraction of what's generated because you are in a position of immediate need (need access to necessities) and I wasn't).

Most people I know don't "want power". They just want to be able to afford basic necessities (food, housing, clothing) without feeling like they are on the brink of survival every day.

Billionaires are starting to take the heat because people are starting to recognize that the wealth created for these billionaires is 100% dependent on their labor, time, and sweat, yet many of them see fractions of fractions of what the billionaires make. If it's somehow unfair for the billionaires to have to pay the government a wealth tax it is equally unfair for said billionaires to withhold so much of the capital generated by their workforces for themselves.

I wouldn't necessarily categorize giving people opportunity to do underpaid, tenuous, non-career, zero-mobility gig work as "giving back to society" nor would I classify the unregulated harms of social media, phone additions, etc. as social good either. That's not to say some of these things aren't also good in many ways, but I also still don't understand why you think this somehow leads to a moral or social justification for unbounded levels of amassed wealth to a single individual.

> Structural problems such as what? The idea that wealth is power? That's the same structural problem that has always existed, except that there are more players than ever before.

So your response to issues such as most people being unable to have a single living wage, rising homelessness, unaffordable housing, is "shrug wealth is power". This is not some kind of inviolable law of nature. We as human beings defining the terms of the game, can set up some legislation.

Learn history. America specifically has combated very similar issues in the past and curbing unimpeded accumulation and breaking up monopolies led to more innovation more diversity in the market and a better distribution of wealth. America has taxed the wealthiest classes more in the past and it wasn't a disaster. Look up the new deal.

> You're not doing this, but when you try to have this conversation amongst the general population what is the response?

Who are you conversing with, me, or the general population? What do you mean when you try to ascribe a belief to the general population? Have you done polling on this? Or are you basing this on media? What are you actually talking about? Why are you so confident in arguing against some perceived hypothetical belief you think "the general population" holds? How do you know there aren't more people who actually agree with your perspective?

> Who lowered that barrier? It was the billionaires

No. Scores of laborers employed by the billionaires lowered the barrier. Yes, many of the billionaires begin with a great idea, but there's no reason having an idea justifies having unbounded wealth. All enterprises depend on legions of people to actually materialize production. There is nothing written in nature that states that the person risking upfront capital should always be compensated more than the people who make production a reality, nor is there any corollary that states that the accumulation permitted should be completely unbounded.

You have convinced yourself that anyone not agreeing with your own belief is ruled by nothing but an emotional or psychological state rather than rational, but different, perspective. This is a perfect way to be a stubborn ass and ensure that no one will ever change your mind. It is anti-intellectualism at its finest. I hope one day you realize how foolish you are being about this.

Since you seem to be into super-reductive arguments, here's mine: we are all clearly hyper-dependent on one another on this planet. There is no reason people who make lots of money shouldn't have to give a reasonable portion of it back to the government and country that they draw labor, customers, and much more from daily. There is no reason that accumulation should be permitted without bound. It is pointless and leads to problems. We can and should argue for reasonable limits or at the very least taxation on massive wealth.

As for me, no envy here. I live comfortably and I am happy with what means I have, something most billionaires don't ever seem to experience. However, I also have eyes and functioning neurons so when I clearly see other human beings unable to afford basic necessities without feeling tremendous stress and pressure and then I see certain high-profile billionaires blowing money on dumb shit, underpaying and abusing workers (piss bottles) and more, I can understand why people want better guardrails in place, and no, wanting to limit the degree to which random people who got lucky in the market can exploit you is not envy.

Economics is simple. Resources are finite, and money plus markets preserve that finitude as an invariant (that's why it works as a store of value). If you sit on more money and accumulate more money a natural consequence is that someone else has less access to the finite resources available (either in actuality or in potentia), period, because you can accumulate enough to begin to dictate how much they can access (by having decision power around wages). There is no reason to assume private individual wealth-hoarders have public interest in mind, and indeed they have often proven that they don't. They want to maximize value at specific points in the system, which is the literal definition of instability and eventual collapse in chaos theory. You need to bring the system back to stability through structural intervention and regulation. Tax the rich. Cap individual accumulation. It's that simple. The world does need or benefit from kings, whether minted through politic or finance.

At this point they will probably just fork yet again and maintain some vibe compiler.

I think Nietzsche is great. His prose is a breath of fresh air and he's arguably the greatest literary stylist among philosophers since the Greeks. Sartre was pretty good too, likely thanks to his ability as a novelist. Some later continental philosophers would have really benefited from reading his aphorism that good writers write to be understood.

I actually think his phd thesis "the history of madness" is his best work. It encapsulates much of the subject matter that would occupy him (knowledge and power) in a domain that's easier to understand than some of his later arguments, and it predates his adoption of a more contorted literary style (or maybe the translation is just better, idk).

Ian Hacking also has a great text that extends Foucault's work "Historical Ontology" that picks up many of the chief ideas in a far more lucid manner for those of us who aren't fans of the later continental style (which if I'm being honest, was always a little too concerned with being obtuse just to sound intelligent)

As far as sociology goes, I think you probably realize claiming an entire field is bunk is dumb. In fact you are committing the very wrong you are apparently complying about (writing off the field of developmental psychology). I haven't heard of. a single beef between these two fields btw, must have been an odd textbook.

In the past at least you could assume the maintainers of the runtime had some kind of mental model of how it worked. In my view, with the way this rewrite has been approached, you can't assume that at all. It's good the test suite passes, but who knows how this will affect the evolution of the codebase? Do we even know if the code is good? How much is just slop? Tests do not test architecture. Is this new rewrite even going to be maintainable? How is the team going to get up to speed on a new codebase in a new language that the main author presumably doesn't even fully understand?

There are many reasons to be concerned. Treating this as no big deal would make me question one's ability to make assessments of technology. There's a world of difference between relying on gen AI heavily in products and leaf nodes of the stack, using it in a purely assistive way, and using it to drive a massive scale rewrite of a base component in a language the maintains team has an unproven amount of experience with. From a reliability standpoint the way this project was executed is completely preposterous, and it's very clearly a marketing stunt more than a sound technical decision on how to drive a project. It's not about the use of LLMs, it's about thee stupid and blatantly obvious generation of cognitive debt all to help sell claude. I'd have way fewer qualms if they used LLMs to do a rewrite in a way that retained developer understanding (i.e. not driven by one person and in such a short timespan that having a robust mental model, even for that person, is highly unlikely)

Developers use LLMs to migrate a million line codebase to a language that they have much less experience with in such a short amount of time that they likely do not have a good mental model of the migrates code.

At least the tests pass.

Only one person drove the migration, so the number of people that understand the new code is ~0.5 under the assumption there's no way the sole dev could build a mental model of fresh 1m code in 6 days.

This is code for a language runtime.

It's great that the tests pass but it's really hard for me to interpret this as anything other than horrible mismanagement of a promising project. When you sit this low in the stack this is grossly irresponsible and I have no idea why anyone would use Bun after this. You'd be literally adopting a runtime the devs presumably don't understand, keep in mind they now somehow need to evolve and maintain this in the future.

Hopefully this remains an experiment, or Bun has some plan for re-upping dev knowledge of the codebase. Sorry but a component with massive blast radius like a runtime isn't really a good candidate for vibe coding, no matter how good the AI is. I'd like the maintainers to actually understand their runtime, thanks.

Project where the sole user is you in your kitchen? Sure, hack it together.

Project where you actually want other people to use the product? A research phase matters and helps here.

Consider what the goal is and the amount of effort to invest typically becomes more evident.

I interpret critiques of this flavor and the "literacy" issue in general as being about a lack of interpretive range more than a tendency to produce some "incorrect" interpretation.

I think people are concerned that declining sophistication in readers actively prevents them from even being aware that some more complex interpretation is possible when engaging with a text. People read the overwhelming lack of nuance in internet comment threads as evidence of this. You can question whether or not that's a legitimate inference in isolation (I think it's dubious, personally), but, when bolstered by evidence from studies about how much people read for leisure, and falling grades on reading comprehension exams, I think the argument gains a little more weight.

I don't necessarily take the author as saying that these commentators are wrong about the NYT's author's self-awareness, but rather that evidence of a more complete reading would evidence itself in the comments if they had a more nuanced interpretation. There's a difference between flat out saying "wow this article really makes the writer look like a horrible person" and "I'm glad the writer had the courage to share this and seems o be growing but I'm amazed they were ever such a horrible person at some point in their lives". Again, it's probably unfair to make a judgement about overall interpretive ability based on one comment alone—one would actually need to subject the commenter to reading comprehension exams to know, but if you do feel the extrapolating judgement to population tendencies is legitimate, I understand why you might draw literacy conclusions.