That's a disfuncional view: "we set the rules, take it or leave it". In Switzerland there are strict requirements, but if you're a law abiding and employed migrant, ie contributing to the country, the services help you fill the paperwork so you can stay.
Even considering the disfuncional way, one thing it's to say "you only stay if we allow". The other is to say "you only leave if you allow": that's a much more authoritarian position.
These policies will work and immigration will lower for sure. Let's see the outcome in a few years.
Exactly. If I buy a new jacket from a store and it's durable, fashionable and warm, I'm not complaining - I exchangedml my money for a valuable product!
Macroeconomics are a different beast but I think it still holds (and not that Trump knows a thing about them). A country with a productive economy may buy some valuable products from other countries. It becomes a problem if it's buying everything and not selling anything.
A lot of software engineers don't have a good feel for this kind of aesthetics or social outcomes. They're playing with their new toy (which is very exciting, let's not ignore that), they're happy it does stuff, but ignore that it can be perceived as ugly and cheap by others. As well as totally bland - every other cheap company is using it too.
Why not have the customer talk to an llm and iterate on the plan? Many customers will appreciate the 30m back and forth replacing the multiple hour meetings.
People are subtracting a lot of hard parts from their thinking, and think it's simpler than it is. What happens when the test suite isn't testing the real thing? The ci/cd doesn't even start? There is a bug requiring a hot fix ASAP? The code is growing into a nasty meatball and spaghetti dish, and the llms just turn shift it around. What about when the agent starts thinking in circles and neefs guidance to start working?
I'm not a ludite: I use llms every day, but I try not to be a meat proxy. Some one off scripts are vibe coded, but applications need real maintainable code.
My prediction for winners and losers: some companies will lay off a ton of programmers and replace with AI, with short term success but long term big problems. Other companies will use llms to boost productivity, but keep their engineers responsible for the health of the products. Short term gains won't be as impressive, but productivity will be higher and the company will be competitive in the long term.
> Why not have the customer talk to an llm and iterate on the plan?
They already do that, hence the SaaSpocalypse. The hope for these AI companies is that the models get better than engineers such that the answer to all your questions is that the AI will handle it.
One is verifiable, if you don't believe maybe you should ask others in the field too. Or maybe you're just wrong and won't admit it, clutching to your preconceived notions.
A simple Google search found these, maybe you should look harder when looking to verify something instead of dismissal. My judgement is indeed perfect in this comment because, as I said, it is verifiable that it is happening, unless you think that no company at all is building internal tools with AI which would be the counter example to my claim that at least some are. Not even sure what your point is here, because your counter claim is nearly unfalsifiable unless you know every single company's operations in the world.
Oof. Gets screwed by a monopoly, defends monopolies: idealism is a chain. It frustrates me how some people are buried in this ideology, given 90% of it would be denied with Economics 101.
Yes, free markets are good to a lot of things. No, they don't adjust for complex matters if consumers don't understand then. No, they don't work when monopolies are involved. No, the government setting some boundaries is not the same as socialism.
Example: company adds a cheap ingredient to food that makes it tastier. Studies show a high chance of cancer. This doesn't affect the company margins, so it keeps adding and selling. Consumers are unaware, they keep buying. A good willing competitor has a dillema: poison its customers or lose clients to competition. Guess who can help? The state: it can forbid that ingredient! Now this levels the field for all companies and customers are healthy.
I'm from Portugal and we have a strong espresso culture, as in 90% of the people probably have multiple espresso every day. Many Portuguese agree that Starbucks espresso sucks compared to most conventional cafes. At most people go there for the American type drinks, which are a complete different style (and the coffee flavor hides behind all other ingredients, it doesn't have to be that good).
The previous comment didn't say that Starbucks doesn't suck (they probably agree that it does -- I've never met anyone who really likes coffee who doesn't agree that modern at-scale Starbucks is awful), they just asserted that the badness there is not explained by faulty temperature control.
reply