I was wondering the same thing. It already takes a very high level of motivation and self discipline to go 3 times a week, going every day requires superhuman levels to so consistently.
This doesn't take into account that your body requires rest, and I don't know how op thinks you can combine this with an active sport like skiing, or something creative like music. You will be drained already from the gym.
Agreed, I like to repeat beneficial things as much as possible but one day your body will send you the bill. There will be some exceptional people that can do that after their 30s but giving you 2 or 3 days of rest is probably the right amount
I don't think this is an old man rant, I think you made a reasonable argument. Rust is certainly at risk of becoming just as complex as c++.
I would love to introduce more rust at work, but I dread that someone is going to ask about for<'a>, use<'a>, differences between impl X vs Box<dyn X>, or Pin/Unpin, and I don't have proper answers either.
> but I dread that someone is going to ask about for<'a>, use<'a>, differences between impl X vs Box<dyn X>, or Pin/Unpin, and I don't have proper answers either.
its an issue in "someone", all those answers can be received in under 1min from AI.
I agree completely, the "democratizing programming" is being overplayed by AI vendors like they are doing community service, and HN commenters use it like a trump card in an argument.
Everyone already had the option to write any code, fork any open source project, publish any of their code, run any of their code but suddenly AI appears and THAT is what makes it democratic? What was undemocratic about it? Is this democracy where idiots are running ai agents that publish smear campaigns, or harass maintainers for not accepting their slop is the democratic future you wish for?
How many (job) positions do you see today that want a backend developer? Frontend developer? Not much because now everyone is expected to be at least full stack, if not also devops as well. The exact same thing is playing out right now with AI, people are expected to produce 5x the amount of code before, if you don't, someone else will take your job that is willing to do it.
Already bloated programs will bloat further, they will require even more resources to run, you will have to pay even more for hardware, they will be slower, less responsive, you will have to pay yet another monthly fee to big tech for their AIs, and people will happily do it and pat themselves that we democratized programming, while running towards the future where nobody will be able to own hardware capable of general computing.
I would love this to be expanded to public transport in general. Fine them for the same amount as traveling without a ticket. It would clear up so fast.
People are rushing to be the first one to coin something and hit it big. Imagine the amount of $$$ you could get for being an "expert ai consultant" in this space.
There was already another attempt at agentic patterns earlier:
I don’t think these kind of outbursts from some random guy in HN requires your response.
You have helped a lot of people from junior to staff+ level to understand how to use agents for software engineering using simple language. Calling it garbage is gross injustice to the work you put out.
They won't have a decent response, this is the Internet after all. I really enjoyed it thanks for writing it and I'll take a lot of it onboard. I think everyone will have their own software stack and AIs designed perfectly for them to do their work in the future.
Secondly: this is a temporary vacuum state. We're only needed to bridge the gap.
I wouldn't be trying to be a consultant, I would be scurrying to ensure we have access to these tools once they're industrial. A "$5M button" to create any business function won't be within the reach of labor capital, but it will be for financial capital. That's the world we're headed to.
The flood-risk zones requiring flood insurance are insufficient to rely solely upon being forced to get insurance. Some floods extend past those zones or hit areas not covered by them.
I think it's similar to, say, serving raw HTTP instead of HTTPS. If, say, Facebook still served HTTP and people were getting their passwords swiped, Meta would be in the crosshairs.
Even though you could say a person getting their 1FA account details phished is technically "their own fault", certainly to a greater extent than my HTTP example, spending the time understanding the issue well enough to realise that it was their own fault and not BigRichCompany's fault is not high on most people's list of fun things to do.
I don't know a single person who is satisfied with the status quo on streaming services where you have to subscribe to multiple ones. Everyone is complaining that the landscape is 1) more fragmented than cable was, 2) costs more, 3) has even more ads than cable
I think people forgot how bad it was. It was much more fragmented before but instead of services it was fragmented by time. Sure you have access to Seinfeld, but you can watch one or two Seinfelds a night at 8pm and 11pm.
I also remember base cable without any movies was around $60 or something and with some movie channels is >$100. And that's not inflation adjusted. You can easily get 3 or 4 of the top services for $100 today.
Finally claiming there are more ads on these services is a joke. There was ~20m for every 30m of programming, meaning 1/3 of the time you're watching commercials. And not just any commercials, the same commercials over and over. There was even a case of shows being sped up on cable to show more commercials.
I get it, everyone wants everything seamlessly and for next to nothing, but claiming that 90s cable was even comparable is absurd.
Not that it is particularly relevant to agentic coding but how can anyone truly argue streaming costs more? Average cable packages were exceeding 125-150 USD a month (in 2000 dollars). Under no circumstances would I be sympathetic to the argument that streaming costs more.
You can get all 7 of the major streaming subs for less without even shopping out deals. That is 100s of times the volume and quality of content that was delivered on cable for far less. It is so much content realistically that no one I have ever met has subscribed to all of them at once.
The argument really is empty. The fragmentized experience is annoying, but it isn't more expensive...And it DEFINITELY has fewer ads.
“Parroting” is not very constructive language but I will respond.
How would you propose solving it? My opinion is that government cannot solve the problem better than the market. That’s not to say the market is ideal or perfect but one of the better tools available. GPU prices might stay high for a number of years. I don’t think that is inherently bad. Constraints breed innovation and help guide market participants into the right direction.
I think folks often get hung up on the market thinking it’s a perfect tool or it will realign issues instantly. That’s not true. Demand is high, price catches up and eventually either that thesis behind the demand is correct and eventually supply increases or that thesis is proven wrong and demand collapses below original baseline.
Obviously that’s a simplified version of it above but I don’t know what folks like yourself are poking. How is a tax on hyperscalers effective? I suspect most folks repeat this idea because they are in the anti-AI camp. Should we tax EV manufacturers because they may be buying up battery supply? I don’t know if I want the government making those kind of decisions.
It (GPU prices getting out of hand) started when, 2012? What's constructive in saying "the market will correct itself" after 14 years of no sign of that happening?
I don't know what the solution is since I'm not an economist, but I also don't have to be a pilot to declare someone fucked up when I see a helicopter on a tree.
EVs are a very tangible thing that are on the road, compare that with crypto and NFT which is ??????
Can you use less inflammatory language and be more critical in your thought? Your point, if there is any, is drowned by your lack of command of constructive discussion.
Who are you to decide what is tangible and what is not? That’s my whole point. GPU prices are still not crazy on a $ / performance scale, especially if you do a rough chart of it over time. Certainly there are carve outs, the 5090 is still hard to get and charges $1k+ premium over msrp.
Deranged? My thesis is that many have tried different ways to solve supply and demand issues and usually on average the market solves it best. It’s not perfect, it’s not always the right tool but on average it’s pretty good.
If that’s deranged wow I might not need to be the one touching grass. Let’s backup, you’re the one saying I am parroting. I asked you how you would solve it. You ignored that and went further down some hole of prices being imbalanced since 2012 and not being a pilot and then jumping to crypto and nft.
None of that is constructive. That’s not what gaslighting is. You’re going off on strange tangents and have yet to provide a solution to the problem. I already said it, the market is not perfect but it’s pretty good at solving these types of problems. If you have a better way I would love to hear it. I don’t believe arbitrarily taxing specific industries is a solution because there are always second order effects that you cannot plan for. And also who gets to decide who can buy equipment or not.
I am not policing you. Just pointing out this is not in the spirit of constructive dialogue and you should work on it! I am generally tired of folks like yourself not adding anything while raging that others need to touch grass. I noticed that’s a common insult with folks like yourself.
This doesn't take into account that your body requires rest, and I don't know how op thinks you can combine this with an active sport like skiing, or something creative like music. You will be drained already from the gym.