adamtaylor_13

You are painting with very broad brush strokes, and I will keep that pattern, but I want to call it out up-front.

I'm actively looking to hire great developers. However, what constitutes are "great" developer has shifted a lot (IMO anyway.) I don't need the most cracked technical coder. I need people who can listen, who can empathize and hear the "problem under the problem" that my clients describe. I need an optimist who can find the good in people and in life.

My company is on a rocket ship trajectory and we just build custom business software for people. Maybe the ride will end soon, but so far I've had nothing but gain from the rise of agentic AI because my role was never about typing on a keyboard, it was always pain management, empathy, and solving problems. It's just that now I can do that faster while paying more attention to the user experience, with code that's twice as robust, and say "yes" way more often than I used to.

I don't see dystopia. But I do see a Great Shakeup (if it's not already happening.) The answer is adaptation. It always has been. That's what makes humans so cool. We're nothing if not adaptation machines.

This feels about two years out of date. Generously, maybe only one. With Opus 5.5 I'd love to see the code you're writing that an agent couldn't write better, faster, more secure, etc.

You've gotta be able to actually show me ads before you can target me with ads.

I'll put up with many things, but paying for the pleasure of viewing ads feels like a moral violation. It's so disturbingly greedy I cannot fully wrap my mind around it.

And I wish I was being dramatic here, but truly anytime I feel I've wrapped my head around the depravity of man I just remember that we have "paid" tiers of TV that show ads and I sleep soundly knowing the bottom remains unfathomed.

We can discuss the demo without acknowledging this because it has literally nothing to do with the roadster.

This is an unbelievably nihilistic take.

I can tell you don't have anyone in your life suffering from debilitating disease, so I'll assume flippancy rather than malice here.

YouTuber is shocked to find out that the government is legally able to do things that you, a private citizen, cannot do.

Self-sufficiency is the great American mythos. Humans, except in extremely rare cases, do not have the capability to live self-sufficiently.

Re-read what I said, specifically, I'm addressing the reflexive hand-wave of fascism as an all-too-common way to suppress thoughts we find distasteful rather than actually engaging.

That's what wartywhoa did to a commenter who was in no way suggesting a fascist view.

That's not worse faith, that's simply pointing out that aligning your ideological opponents with Hitler is intellectually dishonest.

In this you and I agree: "dismissing all criticism because it draws a parallel you don't like isn't reasonable."

> I'd not even bother to reply

Yes, you've shown yourself quite ambivalent to any notion of truth. You'd just as soon call someone Hitler and be on with it rather than try to understand another human's perspective. Pat yourself on the back, friend.

wartywhoa expresses an opinion that I find intellectually lazy and spiritually prideful. Refusing to engage with an idea because it was dimly echoed in a statement made by an evil man is just intellectually lazy.

It's a spectacular bit of pride in oneself to try to silence someone's opinion because you found an abstractly-similar statement made by an evil man. Why probe the idea when you could just assign Hitler's evil intentions directly to them?

It's gross. It's tired. I wish people cared more to engage in good faith.

I can't help but notice that for certain people with a particular anger against society, everything they disagree with is fascist in nature.

If Mao had said it, it would've been "absolutely communist", if Washington had said it, it would've been "absolutely Patriotic".

Dude said "Adapt" and you really pulled out Hitler.

Oi. Discussion on this site gets more difficult each day. Instead of pointing out where you disagreed you just pulled out the most egregious appeal to authority and said, "oH yEaH?"

I must again point out that we're not even certain yet that we're "losing" any programming capability, and we're not certain the tradeoff isn't worth it.

All of these arguments presuppose we're losing something that's not worth losing.

I want someone to start one square earlier and argue to me why that matters. I've read enough of these "your skills are atrophying!" arguments; I'm also making like 10x as much revenue as I did through a business that delights my clients. Why should I care about my "skills" if I'm still able to make money, pursue hobbies, and enjoy life?

I just don't think it's that serious.