Your condition sounds really challenging. I'm sorry you have to suffer from it and I truly wish you well.

Thank you not everyone is understanding. Less than half a percent of the population in the USA suffers from it so it isn't a priority for doctors to treat and cure. I am on psychiatric medication for it but it makes me drowsy.

I get your take and agree with the sentiment BUT I don't think this somehow requires "automatic punishment". Also, if the laws are there then I tend to think they should be enforced. Maybe this kind of thing will empower places to drop some of the laws most folks agree are "slightest infractions".

This sounds reasonable but I think it's a bit optimistic

I don't think "increased government ability to enforce rules and collect fines" is likely to lead to less rules

I would love to be proven wrong

I agree with you on every thing you wrote here

Nice, sequential flow charts are easy to understand and pitch and they also make it nice for the folks at the front to say they did their part and any issues are now someone else's fault.

When people try to diagram the actual process (closer to what you're talking about) it's just a giant circle (or "double diamond" for folks charging money for powerpoints) which isn't a tool that makes management feel easier or "on track".

Worrying about how managers are feeling, what vibe they are into now, how they might misinterpret something they heard-it’s exhausting.

Slow clap

Homo economicus to the rescue! Every consumer has perfect knowledge, spending power, and access to effectively unlimited choice which is why when they want lower quality things it's a calculated, careful decision weighing all the options and the long term impacts on both themselves and the future of the industry.

Monopolies and pricing power clearly destroy this utopia but even without those I try to remember Pratchett's "boots theory" whenever I start to blame the consumer for "accepting" abuse from the capital in power of what gets made, when, and for whom.

Hello fellow economics major :)

Yep, capitalism fails in a few ways in the long run. Monopolies, imperfect competition, etc., which is why regulation is required to optimize the system.

Regulation against ruling class will never happen. They hire the regulators, more or less, with a few nice and hopeful exceptions, but they're vanishingly rare.

I believe the science knows how to fix capitalism, and has known for decades. But nobody from the rules wants that.

Life would certainly be easier if we could all choose which things done by other people affect us and vice versa. Then we could have these simple "if you don't like it, leave" arguments hold water and air pollution wouldn't exist and herd immunity wouldn't be a thing and we wouldn't even need police.

There is a big gap between the other commenter's desire to write code by hand and air pollution.

Look, as a programmer I also love writing code by hand, however it's childish to suggest that if I can no longer make a living doing so because automated code production is more profitable that that's equivalent to boiling in a pot or suffering from air pollution.

There are substantiative risks with AI, such as a potential for a singularity, that would make for an actual compelling argument. Some engineer's desire to make a living writing code by hand does not. That's a luxury.

Even if profit isn't involved this entire op argument seems really weird to me. It seems exceptionally entitled and also myopic? Somehow the author wants the good (??), popular (??) open source projects (made of thousands and thousands of opinionated decisions, many aesthetic and not "rational") to decide to cooperate and suddenly share opinions and aesthetic (while simultaneously maintaining the unique opinions and aesthetic that made the project popular in the first place?). The whole thing feels a lot like consumers demanding even more from open source maintainers and continuing to pay nothing.

Cory Doctorow calls this "reverse centaurs". His metaphor is human brain driving an augmented "body" as a "centaur" which means an ai "brain" doing the thinking and the humans just being cheaper, expendable robots doing the physical work is a "reverse centaur". It's kind of a clunky term but it's in my brain now for this concept so I guess it's a usable shorthand.

Curious as to why "Minotaur" wasn't the mythological creature of choice – seems to me like it would fit the metaphorical bill.

I don't agree with most of this but my good faith take is that my experience trends closer to your opinion the more stable and large a codebase is plus how dedicated and multidisciplinary the team is. I disagree the most for young, volatile projects with small eng-only teams that are responsible for many projects at once.