Yea.. When people say "you can make great money in the trades" what they usually mean is that you can make great money by owning a trade business and/or hiring tradesmen. Which is kind of different than being a tradesman.
True but electricians have a real system without bullshit, we wire something up and it just works, it keeps working too! You press the button, the light goes on, you press it again and it goes off! Except from audio all of the automatons come with the right plugs.
You would think after 50 years software devs build something similar but besides the <input type="submit"> button absolutely nothing works like that. Switching on the lights by clicking on a button using the mouse would already be a serious enterprise level undertaking. Then when you think you are done someone in Russia and someone in China are also able to control your lights.
There are no labels on our buttons, the dimensions are in exact mm. If you ask a software dev they will tell you mm have something to do with printing. On a screen a button can have any size, no one knows really how big it turns out regardless which of the 50 different units you use. pt rm rem px % vw etc etc
Sounds pretty unscientific? Can you at least tell me when it is finished and how much it will cost? Did I say something wrong?
Is this comment a joke or do you not understand how dangerous it is to ask a driver to blow into a breathalyzer while operating a vehicle?
All this seems to be is a company collecting corporate welfare while doing the bare minimum. Such companies should both be sanctioned and have their leadership investigated for potential fraud.
If you receive public dollars to function, the public should expect some modicum of sensibility and accountability.
If they set their own place on fire, they're also homeless. Just as self-inflicted, but significantly less dangerous to third parties than driving drunk.
Driving while drunk is not a silly little mistake. A third of all fatal crashes involve drunk drivers. Letting these people drive at all even with a breathalyzer is an abomination. You can expect them to have a similar disregard for other fundamentals of safe driving.
I'm not commenting on the morality of drunk driving. I'm commenting on the effectiveness of just fucking them over, that being, not effective at all.
There's this thing in the mainstream where people feel like the best way to handle people doing bad things is to just pummel them into the ground as much as possible.
While that might feel the most justified, that doesn't actually solve the problem. Suspending licenses doesn't stop drunk people from driving, because cars are more or less a necessity.
So, knowing it's a necessity, we have to design the car around that and enforce safe operation by an alcoholic.
Which is a stop-gap solution. A better solution is making cars not a necessity. But until then, we should do the stop-gap.
Stop-gap is restricting the driving to work schedule then. Everything else is optional and you can learn to work within that system. We try to put up industrial solutions to everything. Why not keep the laws cut and dry. This action = this consequence. You determine your actions you must accept x consequence. Or better yet jail time for 6 months then you will be fed and you will lose everything. There are options
It wasn't that long ago these devices weren't mandatory and they'd just suspend your license.
I am actually curious now whether that was more effective since the offender had to endure the judgment of the person in their life giving them a ride to work.
I don't understand why this is obviously untrue. Do we have any reason to believe that those people didn't just... continue to drive with a suspended license?
Not to mention DUI is a fairly recent development. In the 20th century, it was pretty easy to drive drunk and get away with it.
Yeah and what's stopping someone from drinking while borrowing someone else's car? Oh they don't want their car wrecked too? They may just drive the drunk to work then.
We arrive at the same place with the same real solutions (the people). The technology doesn't do anything except add extra steps and convince the public something was done.
If anything it creates enough hassle for the offender that new crimes are being committed with harsher consequences (domestic abuse), or dragging additional people into crime they didn't intend (negligent entrustment).
> We arrive at the same place with the same real solutions (the people)
This is always the case. There will always be murderers, and thieves. But technology just helps.
There are real solutions, and fake ones. Fake solutions include "make people not bad anymore". This just doesn't work, there will always be alcoholics, end of.
If there was less of a reliance on cars, there would be less drunk driving. We take drunk driving as a necessary consequence of transportation, but that's just not true. And, if we had less of a reliance on cars, we could actually suspend licenses sooner.
But as it currently stands, we cannot. We would just be permanently fucking people over in such a severe and unnecessary manner. Being unable to drive is one of the most reliable ways to become homeless in many parts of the US. This will only lead to more crime.
I didn't say it directly, but did mention depending on others multiple times in my replies. If you are truly all alone, that is the biggest contributing factor to becoming homeless. We live in a society.
There often is a ton of help for alcoholics with stuff like this. In fact, I would say alcoholics probably have the most support out of any type of addict because it's so common. When a drunk is forced to seek assistance to make their commute, it often comes with strings attached to put them on the path to quitting. I don't see what's so bad about that.
You might be a functioning alcoholic, but when alcohol intoxication is so prevalent in your life it interferes with day to day routines activities, it absolutely meets the psychosocial definition of addiction, and likely points to a deeper one.
Every rural area I've ever worked in had a non trivial number of folks who would have 2-3 drinks at the bar/whatever on a Friday or a Saturday and drive home. It was not alcoholism, it was "I'm totally fine to drive, the law doesn't know my limits" etc.
On some level that's just the price of wanting to go out and not wanting to drop a bunch of cash on a taxi (assuming you can get one to come).
2-3 drinks on a Friday night when you're supposed to drive home is different. I'd also say "I can drink because the law is wrong" is also not exactly a neutral take.
- I believe the law is overly proscriptive / strict / wrong.
- I believe I won't get caught
It's no different to someone speeding because "It's clear conditions and I consider myself to be perfectly safe at this speed". Or skipping a stop sign "I can clearly see nothing is coming".
LOL. Do you know how many people are driving with suspended licenses now? The number would skyrocket if systems like these didn't exist.
Especially in rural areas, you can get away with driving on a suspended license for a pretty long time before a cop catches you. I know someone who was probably (she wouldn't admit to it) doing it for at least a year.
Once while hot air balloon chasing, we saw a guy driving his 4 wheel drive in the ditches along a gravel road and found out later from someone he had a suspended license.
They said he figured the cops couldn't stop him if he stuck to the ditches and didn't operate on the official roadway.
Unfortunately driving on a suspended is mostly not enforced either, so giving them the carrot of keeping their license is the only thing the judicial branch can do that has much sway (other than jailing them) without being able to order the executive branch to change.
Oh wow so the judicial system is developing the software? It's not a private company that only exists to fulfill a government need with zero accountability? What were the terms of their contract? What was their SLA? How do users engage with the company?
Sorry but these companies are all scams thrusted upon the public. Any business that takes government money should be held accountable or compelled to engage in workplace democracy.
I'm not a fan of companies making garbage products while getting rich off of public dollars. Just because some people like corporate welfare doesn't mean the vast majority of the public likes it.
The type of work matters and understanding how capital interacts with labor is something that hasn't really changed over the last 150 years (not the first time productivity tools have been introduced in capitalism).
All we are going to get is increased mass surveillance and molding software engineers into more assembly line work.
Both things do not sound good or reasonable nor wanted by a majority in our industry.
But sure! Being able to do more busy work is useful I guess, too bad the workers will never benefit from such a scheme; hopefully the masses don't overthrow the country, but I wouldn't blame them if they did.
+1, it feels very much like a case of _feeling_ more productive because you’re outputting more …stuff…, but IME, it’s easy to produce a lot of stuff that isn’t useful and just creates a productive vibe (pun intended)
Have you ever organized with your community before? No offense but you come across as a libertarian trying to monetize social relationships. It comes across as deeply human. It also declares that people have no agency, it's just a pathetic view point on humanity and our potential.
To think money is the only thing that is of highest value in our incredibly short lives is a mental sickness.
> To think money is the only thing that is of highest value in our incredibly short lives is a mental sickness.
They didn’t say that? Nor was it even implied? What the hell?
All they said was that EVEN free time is a form of wealth that not all enjoy, and free time does often correlate to how well you can express your care for someone. And they are absolutely, without a single shadow of a doubt, correct.
This company is part of the portfolio of a $trillion+ transnational corporation. The idea that we can't judge them, when they clearly have more resources than 99% of other companies on this planet, doesn't hold up to any scrutiny.
Why defend a company that clearly doesn't care about its customers and see them as a money spigot to suck dry?
The OP clearly never says we can't judge them. He was speaking to how the uptime is measured. I'm not saying I agree or disgree with the OP but at least address the argument he's making.
Asking it to do something isn't exactly complicated. At the very least, it's way easier than actually coding so why would you expect people to struggle with writing? There's no skill required in using LLMs, that's kinda the point.
Anthropic, the company that actually has much worse revenues and likely mislead the public? [1] That Anthropic? The same Anthropic that has taken billions of gulf state money where the countries are on the verge of divesting itself from the US or fear of potentially losing their refineries + oil fields for at least 50 years? That same Anthropic?
This house of cards is about to collapse and lot of "smart" devs are going to act shocked when the water recedes.
The same thing always happens: companies "adopt" open source then, unless you have monopoly, money problems eventually appear and leadership sees this lovely team with "bloated budget" in the bylines.
I hate it when people use commentary articles as fake sources for their points. It's even more aggravating when the "journalists" are making points that play to the ignorance and outrage of the reader, as they know those readers are the easiest to bait for clicks and mislead. For instance, how is Anthropic claiming that its total revenue since January 2025 as $5 billion contradict that its expected run-rate revenue for the year 2026 is $19 billion?
> Anthropic claiming that its total revenue since January 2025 as $5 billion contradict that its expected run-rate revenue for the year 2026 is $19 billion?
Isn’t the “exceeding $5BN” comment a lifetime revenue? … on $30BN (edit: previously said spent) raised (or something ridiculous.)
A lot of the commentary on the frontier model companies is based on how much money they’ve spent to the relatively small amount they’ve made in return, and the skepticism, especially given almost continuous reporting, that deploying AI in a variety of situations doesn’t seem to yield favorable business outcomes. OpenAI shifting to enterprise / coding type stuff this week seems, also, potentially informative. Is Gen AI actually useful for anything but code? Signs keep pointing to no… and even then, we’re in the early stages of figuring out how to build without destroying everything… something Amazon just recognized as possible with their recent shopping outage.
Because the model of private capital using open source to make profits is a failure state that we need to get away from. There's no reason why the government can't sponsor open source projects, something tells me the vast majority of open source devs wouldn't mind a system where grants can be reward to projects that the public finds valuable.
That would be much more sustainable than VC rat fucking the commons to make a buck while suckering in devs that were once good community stewards into dry husks that are only formed to generate profit.
Ok but those government grants don't really exist today and what you're arguing for is zero sustainability for open source projects. This is certain to lead to the death of open source - there's not even the reputational pay-off any more if the only real consumer is AI.
ah yes the common rebuttal of "but this doesn't exists, so I want the boot to keep stomping on my face. Please don't do anything different! The boot is kinda nice actually now that I sustained enough nerve damage."
Grants are a very effective model of support, it seems to work for entire industries + professions around the world. Even better when there is a body of professionals working democratically to decide which people should be awarded the grants.
Just because you have a failure of imagination doesn't mean others do.
Bad faith reply. The government grants do not exist, it's not a failure of imagination, I too would like to live in that world, but we don't and aren't likely to any time soon. And even if we did, do you think that Deno would have been likely to receive a grant? I do not.
You are barking up the wrong tree. Ryan can't do anything to make government grants for this kind of work exist.
It would be a huge public service if you could get more public support for open source. Maybe you could do it instead of criticizing Ryan!
Some public support for this kind of work already exists, especially for the Python science ecosystem, but nothing that comes close to "competing" with VC for a project like Deno.
You should be the change you hope to see in the world and make this happen!
Ideally, the corporations that get immeasurable benefits from open source are a better source for the money. There are multiple ways this can play out, direct payments, putting employees on the project, or contributing their own projects to benefit others.
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/construction-and-extraction/electric...
Median software devs make over double that, ~$130k:
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/...
The only way to make good money in the trades is to own a business, something not everyone can do (let alone be successful at).
reply