Exactly. Just as we also see the sun rise each morning.
That, however, does not imply one predicts that the sun will forever rise each morning. In fact, we know that at some point the sun will no longer rise in the morning. But we see the sun rise each morning, and we see a new cambrian idea or core technology every 5-10 years.
> I'm not the one conflating anything here.
That's fair. Conflation implies intent. Whereas you are just confused.
My point is that there’s no guarantee this tech explosion will continue. Your logic appears to be “it has, so it will, until it doesn’t”, which… okay? All of your comments so far feel like you’re disagreeing with me just because you feel like being argumentative rather than because you have something useful to say.
> It is amazing how impactful the tuning of an interest rate by a central bank, a single float, is.
But not all that amazing when you remember that said tuning always happens in reaction to what is already happening. If money were free again today, it is much more likely that people would funnel it into backing products and services riding the inflationary wave, not go back to tech startups. That's explicitly why the central banks increased rates in the first place, after all – to slow down that behaviour. It is just one of an infinite number of variables, not some magical variable that stands alone. Tech's day in the sun was over either way. People were already moving on.
Do you still find HTML5 to be as interesting as ever, or do you find that interest wanes with time? AI is many decades older than HTML5, so if your interest does wane then it stands to reason that there would be very little vestigial interest remaining.
I find WebGPU interesting as an extension of HTML5; I think HTML5 offers features that are not being taken advantage of by mainstream websites. I think HTML5 is interesting because, as a software engineer, it's a set of tools I can build something with. LLMs are not interesting to me because they're simply a product to use or consume. They're not terribly interesting to interface with because the commercial ones simply sit behind an HTTP API, so the only thing to do with them is send them different prompts, which is, again, uninteresting.
> But, you'll have people claim "that isn't efficient! the private sector can do better!"
They might, but, if you are going to let the private sector do better, doesn't that also come with the implication that that the government will step down? We could, for example, have hundreds of businesses selling Windows, Office, etc., fixing the Microsoft problem spoken of earlier, but we can't do that right now because the government doesn't allow it. Try starting a business selling Windows and see how long before the full force of the law is bearing down on you. That certainly isn't efficient.
Certainly if you need a network-attached database and aren't creating your own home brew network-attached database (the so-called API server), Postgres is a pretty good choice.
Often the models and equations rely on making assumptions in order to simplify the problem (cue the joke about physicist and the spherical cow). This is one of the reasons thing are designed with tolerances and safety factors.
Software like CAD and particularly Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) packages can simulate the problem but at least with CFD you would typically perform other types of verification such as wind tunnel tests etc.
I'm not sure that's analogous to "best practices" like "do not repeat yourself (DRY)" or "don't use GOTO". These are little more than stylistic choices that claim to offer more maintainable code. Comparable "best practices" in other engineering fields would be along the lines of "do not chamfer/fillet until the end of modelling" (one I have heard before).
Analyzing a CAD model as you describe is more like running a compiler or type checker on code already written, which is the norm in software too, but is not within in the vein of the topic of discussion.
> We really need to get serious about improving our transportation infrastructure.
Better yet, we really need to consider urbanization. That way everything you need is right there by your own two feet. No need for any extra special transportation at all.
It seems people have a burning desire to live the rural lifestyle, though, even in so-called cities. I'm not sure we can actually overcome that pressure.
Even with heavy urbanization you'll need some form of transit on top of walking. Have you ever visited any really big cities (eg. Tokyo)? Every time I'm in one, I get the impression they would grind to a standstill without their mass transit systems.
I've never understood the argument about small towns being worse for urbanism.
Back in the day, before cars were widespread, everything had to be close by.
You don't even have to sacrifice the backyard for that, you can have a city layout that puts the houses themselves fairly close to each other, and the yards can radiate outwards. Then you connect each cluster's main street with the other ones, but unlike suburbs, you make each "subdivision" mixed-use and you allow public transit , pedestrians and cyclists to cut across subdivisions for easy access everywhere.
If anything, small towns should be urbanism done right, because they don't (shouldn't?) have the money for sprawl and they don't have all the pressures for increasing density a lot, that big cities have.
Indeed, and there are small businesses mixed in with the houses. But the problem is cars (it's always cars). A coffee shop next to your house is fine - a delight even - when 20 people arrive by walking or biking. When it's 20 cars though it's misery.
> Have you ever visited any really big cities (eg. Tokyo)
Yes, these are the rural areas of which we speak. Everything gets spread out and then you're stuck travelling long distances to do anything, just like those who live in actual rural areas. There is no question that transportation is necessary in a rural area.
A proper urban environment, however, puts everything right there in a short distance. No need to ever travel beyond where your feet can take you. That's the whole reason for living so close to other people.
But it's clear that people want to live in (or pretend to live in) rural areas. It seems to be in our nature. As such, there is a lot of pressure to maintain the way things are. Hence the ill-conceived cries for better transportation to maintain the rural way of life instead of actually embracing urbanity.
I would say that's better characterized as an opposition to urbanization that's designed for and presumes the ownership of cars by those who live there, and to that I heartily agree! Gridlock-bound US cities are a nightmare to navigate, but again, that is not the fault of the city, that is also the fault of the car and how inefficient it is as a transport solution.
If cars simply didn't exist, our cities would not, could never have, been designed the way they are, in any way.
> If cars simply didn't exist, our cities would not, could never have, been designed the way they are, in any way.
Nah. Many cities long predate the car. They absolutely were designed in the same way they are still found now, aside from what are now roads were squares for people to walk in. Return the road back to being a square and nobody would be able to recognize that there was a car era. But, so long as the people want to live a rural lifestyle, good luck…
This is a colossal failure for humanity, primarily due to home ownership as an investment vehicle, plus regulatory capture pushed by the car companies and oil and gas companies.
There is no technical reason we can't have livable, quiet and spacious apartments, where multiple apartment buildings share a huge, enclosed backyard (almost park-like, even), a setup with tons of small shops, pharmacies, easy access to everything, etc.
Plus you can also have access to large parks, in a suburb you'd never have access to those, just your limited backyard.
Even nice apartments are pretty miserable places to live if you have multiple small children, or engage in hobbies or activities that require much equipment. Imagine coming home to your apartment with a muddy mountain bike. Do you haul it up to the 4th floor in the elevator and wash it in your shower? It's possible to make it work but living in a single-family home (or townhouse with attached garage) sure makes regular life a lot easier.
> Imagine coming home to your apartment with a muddy mountain bike. Do you haul it up to the 4th floor in the elevator and wash it in your shower?
We have the tech for this, we could have literal multi-bike sheds/parking garages and all that's needed is 1 (ONE) water source with a hose inside. As I said, failure on the part of our species :-)
In my city there are actually a few public bike washing stations, so the game plan in this case would be just to bike that way before coming home.
Stacked like a sardine for $3,500/mo, yet still have to travel long distances to do anything. The curse of the wannabe rural city. But, as people want to (or at least want to pretend to) live in a rural area, change is unlikely.
Many of us simply don't want to live in expensive urbanized environments (especially in more desirable ones)--at least at many points in our lives, so yeah no.
I mean the problem isn't those who don't want to live in cities nor is it those who want to live in cities: the problem is the suburbs, which is where those two meet. People who aren't in and do not desire an actual rural lifestyle where one has a standalone home on a large plot of land in the middle of nowhere, but also don't want a condo. They want their own little plot of land, with a small yard, and a standalone home.
And like, same. That's also me.
But the problem is the actual costs of that style of home are incredibly, heavily subsidized by the cities they surround and indeed even the rural areas they border, because suburbs are just... a bad goddamn way to house people. They're incredibly inefficient, basically require your own personal car, require the most infrastructure build-out for the smallest population, require the largest footprint of services over the largest area to serve the smallest number of people, etc. etc.
And like, I don't think it's unreasonable to say if you want to live this way, that's fine, but then you need to actually pay for it. Your property taxes need to reflect how much it actually costs to serve your property, to build the huge number of roads needed to access it, to maintain those roads, to maintain the electrical grids, to maintain the water and sewage services, to bus kids to schools, etc. etc. etc.
And yeah that's going to make suburbs WAY less appealing because they're going to be fucking expensive but like, the alternative is, again, everyone wanting that, and not paying for it. The dense urban centers they surround absolutely hemorrhage money supporting the suburbs around them.
Around where I live (greater Boston metro) most of the tech jobs are actually out in the suburbs/exurbubs. There were basically no tech jobs in the city ~20 years ago any longer. (It's mostly only changed with the establishment of of satellite offices of some west coast companies.)
I don't know. My town has a budget. We argue over property taxes at town meetings. We argue over enterprise zones like distribution centers that certainly aren't going in the middle of large cities. We argue over school spending that tends to be lower than in large cities. No one is wiping out highways that connect large cities to other places.
Did he really say that? Farmers are the original WFH-ers.