cjblomqvist

I doubt it, and from what I hear it's the opposite. I sat with a potential client just today that had a sort of working mess of vibe coded stuff to handle parts of his business (one man show). He was now looking for a proper solution to replace because it took too much time to maintain, it was unstable, etc. He wanted something that just works that he can rely on.

I think a lot of SaaS tools have a great future. But they will require less engineers to build.

In my experience, this is the kind of thing that one should explore when choosing co-founders. Misalignment here, at least the kind where you're not fully (100%!) okay with, and you're up for a painful journey. Maybe not at the beginning, but most likely at some point in time. The kind of thing that can ruin a lot, including causing an identity and life crisis.

In Sweden, there's a fundamental agreement between companies, the state and unions to not have raises follow inflation (as it becomes reinforcing and hurting the rack economy).

Now, there's always discussion (you can guess who's arguing what if inflation is high and low...), but overall it seems to work pretty good.

The EU is collecting CO2 taxes (indirectly by giving permits out). That's a good comparison. There're tolls in the making for imports.

In this particular case I'm quite sure it's not the case. Good arguments in the other comments (why not just log more if that's the case), but I also happen to know a little bit about the workings of Mullvad (I live in Gothenburg where they're from...)

Northern Europe, at least Scandinavia, is already at 90%+ non carbon electricity generation. (88-100%)

Central and Eastern Europe have it tougher.

Totally. Tech neutral state incentives is the way to go for sure, everybody has different environment and context to consider (same within Sweden). Southern Europe has very different opportunities (much better situation for solar for example).

Anyway, my comment was in response to the extreme comment (parent) about how all rich countries became rich using fossil fuels - implying that that's the more or less only way to transition from poor to rich. I think it's important to note that that's not necessarily the case. You don't need to destroy the environment to go from poor to rich, even though a lot of countries historically have done it that way (also noteworthy that they did it without knowing about the consequences for the environment).

Iceland (geothermal) and Sweden (hydro + nuclear) comes knocking.

I know at least Sweden has been a net exporter for a long time. It's a little bit complicated (that's what happens in a market economy). Anyhow, we/EU should continue to strive to end coal as an energy source for all countries, be since we can do much better.

Or, because coding is now not a bottleneck, it'll become increasingly important to ensure all your developers know what to do/achieve, and you'll need to put more effort into setting up structures, processes etc to do that. More collaboration (instead of lone wolf coder) may actually increase the need for good managers.

Snapdragon Elite X Gen 2 laptops are coming out as we speak. Assuming you're not doing GPU heavy work (or gaming), that's what you should be looking at. They are equal to M4 performance. Personally I'd look at the new Asus machines from CES.

A good leader/manager will most likely leave the decision up to the team. A bad team will make the wrong decision and probably blame the leader/manager. The main problem here is the performance of the team - but maybe more importantly the lack of ownership of the team (blaming the boss).

A bad manager/boss pressuring the team to make the wrong decisions - yes, in that scenario the main problem is the boss.

Unfortunately, in my experience, there's often talk about one situation without the other (at least portrayed as the only one). Many times it feels like it's too divert blame and guilt, and to defend what is really the opposite situation. Really makes discussing this topic more toxic and a lot less valuable - much more interesting to discuss the nuances!

If that $7-8 billion is spent on Azure, then it's basically a way to invest in data center capacity while also getting a big piece of Open AI ownership at the same time.

Är the same time, MS revenues are looking real good, causing the stock price to go up. It's a win win win maybe win huge situation.