Not just randomness, but also time and day of the week, the source (domain), and quality of the writing (enough to make the first few users to upvote before the submission gets dropped from the first page).
I think HN reposts links that are “interesting” from users with a certain level of “karma” and I imagine from places that have a certain level of “authority” - wish I could gift you the karma points
I will never understand how so many intelligent people in the software industry, programmers, my colleagues, were/are so short sighted, and... perhaps selfish.
Every time I have brought up unions for the past 25 years, you get this prevalent attitude that "we" programmers have it great. Do not rock the boat.
I do not mean to pick on any one individual, but look at this comment thread from just 1 year ago.
"Yeah, look at union successes like dockworkers holding economy hostage via a legalized monopoly, while having more striking non-working members long useless due to automation than actual workers! I sure aspire to work in an industry like that." -- some hackernews user
What?
"There is not a single problem competent developers have that unions would solve" -- some hackernews user
What?
Well. Now we will all suffer. I am bitter. I will suffer because of years of shortsightedness and stubbornness and some kind of "we are ubermensch" and above all the little people who need silly little crutches like unions.
Unions, like other monopolies, are good for their members and bad for everyone else. Whether unionizing is unselfish or not is debatable, but it makes the world worse.
Unions make the world worse? What nonsense is this?
Labor unions gave us the 8 hour workday, overtime pay, child labor bans, workplace safety standards, and union shops generally earn 10-15% more than their non-union counterparts.
Me too. Here is some history to back up how absurd the statement is.
In 1930, John Maynard Keynes wrote an essay title "Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren"
He predicted that in 2030, technology, productivity, capitalism would solve the economy. There would be so little work to do and so many resources that the average work week could just be 15 hours!
He wrote that once all us plebes were liberated from work, what we would face is humanities greatest problem. What purpose will we have with all this new found leisure time!
The user base on Hacker News has really gone down hill. Voting down my comment above has no basis in the guidelines or the strictly information content of post, and hence, I have to conclude people just vote down opinions they do not like.
I propose that voting on comments should have a required field addendum, so that before a vote can be cast, the voter has to type into the field the reason they are voting it up or voting it down.
I see things differently. This is a change unlike anything in the past. Back then, it didn't replace human intellectual activity. However, problems of increasing scale will continue to arise, and inevitably, issues will emerge that are too difficult to solve through the efforts of human communities alone.
The performance gap between free and paid AI models is massive. The resulting divide between children from low-income and high-income families is quite evident based on my observations in my country. It will only get harder to keep up.
I don't support UBI either. The fact that UBI is even being discussed means the market is broken. The problem is that in the current market, prices for freelance work tied to intellectual labor have been absolutely crushed by AI. Looking at indicators from Booth or the Korean freelance market, "middle-tier" jobs are disappearing. While currently established professionals remain unaffected for now, the volume of work has drastically decreased for developers or writers who are still building their reputations. There are statistics from Japan showing this as well. My workload has also decreased to a ridiculous extent. The so-called barbell structure is becoming entrenched.
The core issue is this: if that happens, how will society handle the dissatisfaction of such a massive number of people? If more than half the population are workers, there is no problem, but if more than half are unemployed, that is a serious issue. Income polarization is continuing to accelerate.
Because there are no aristocrats without slaves, capitalists need workers to elevate themselves. Wealth and power are strictly relative, and they need miserable ornaments to make themselves feel like "awe-inspiring beings." To confirm their own sense of superiority, capitalists require human spectators who look up to them while suffering in misery. Why else did ancient Rome unleash lions and gladiators in the Colosseum?
Later on, things made by humans will become expensive luxuries, while commoners like me will be fed UBI—the bare minimum bread for survival—along with cheap, AIslop.
If making money by learning a skill increasingly requires a longer time investment, you have to endure the period it takes to learn that skill and build a reputation, which is incredibly difficult for the average working class. It requires the financial backing of a wealthy family to afford a college degree, travel to academic conferences, and survive on low wages. And if someone can endure all that to build a reputation, it will naturally lead to a massive concentration of wealth at the very top.
Let me clarify one point I was trying to make. It is my belief nobody is going to give you UBI. I offered up Keynes prediction as a little bit of evidence about human nature. The United States could have easily built infrastructure and safety nets to feed all of its citizens. It could have easily provided a much improved welfare system, universal health care, and other social services. But it did not.
>The core issue is this: if that happens, how will society handle the dissatisfaction of such a massive number of people?
Looking through history books: not well. Not well at all. But with the course of things, it seems inevitable unless new leadership comes in and takes a huge 180 on policy.
I had similar? thought many years ago when strong typing became another one of the programming mantras touted on the internet.
Even dynamically type programming languages will layout what types the languages has. But that is usually the conventions built off of years of history, usually based on C.
But what if you wanted to define a custom type to use? Say you wanted to make type mysmallint, and it was an integer that is between 1 and 1000. Now, you can write up code to do this but it is not the same thing as declaring type int. *
*unless you are using Haskell, F#, or others I am not aware of.
What if you wanted to define a custom type that says this string only contains ascii characters? You can not easily define that as a type and pass it around the code. You have to write custom code and do checks.
This is one of the beauties of Clojure’s spec. You can define a ‘type’ that is a string which length is a prime number and contains only Ascii characters but ‘x’. To put those invariants in code and not in your head is so liberating.
Don't know anything about clojure, but isnt this true with any language or library that implements schema validation? I'm thinking zod, for instance. Does clojure make it trivial?
This has been known a long time. Freakanomics did a two part podcast on does advertising actually work. It is long but well worth a listen if you want to hear some science about advertising.
Just my personal anecdata, it took my a while to put a finger on it, but it seemed like something started to change in products in the 90s. Bag of chips started to fill up with more air and less chips, candy bars got smaller, airlines started reducing seat sizes. Super huge discount? retail stores opened, that you usually needed a membership card. Walmart started offering the cheapest sourced product from around the world that was often just slightly inferior to what you use to be able to get, or the price on the higher quality item went up while the slightly lower quality item price went down. Washing machines started using all these cheap plastic parts that more easily wear down or break. Electronics started to get added to everything whether it is needed or not, usually for switches where the electronic part is cheaper than the mechanical equivalent.
And I realized, this is what people want, in the sense of this is what they will pay for, this is how they vote with their wallet. What I want is not this, but it is what society wants.
I disagree that it is what people want. Nobody wants a smaller chocolate bar for the same amount of money, more cramped seats, washing machines that break and need constant replacement, etc.
Massive corporate consolidation means that when you're looking at the rack of chocolate bars there's a good chance that just 2 companies made all of them. You have the illusion of choice.
None of this happened over-night. It's a slow steady financial optimization in all industries all at the same time. It's very hard to vote with your wallet when there's very little difference.
If there is a sustainable market for higher volume/quality/durability products for a higher price, it is in the interest of companies - new and existing - to capture it, as by definition they would profit from it.
Consolidation alone is insufficient to explain such a gap under the assumption of profitability.
Economic theory would work a lot better if humans weren't involved.
It's almost impossible for a new company to join most of these markets; the major players are so large that they have influence over the retailers, the suppliers, and everyone in the middle.
But every so often successful higher volume/quality/durability products do manage exist for a time but are eventually bought out and the brand destroyed. This has played out over and over.
The market optimizes for profit growth, not for customer satisfaction.
There is a spectrum of how good a product is between "doesn't work at all" to "falls apart in a couple uses" to "lasts five generations of your families lives."
Companies tiptoe this fine line between having something so shitty that people immediately reject it and so good that they never buy any more and the company folds. It has to be just shitty enough where they can guarantee future replacement sales but not so shitty to put people off right away.
Most of these durable goods products are therefore found in companies too small to satiate the demand of their entire market share too fast. And even then they fail all the time.
Customers are not perfectly-informed rational actors. The areas that companies are cutting costs on are precisely those that are most likely to escape the customer's notice - slightly smaller size, less durable, etc.
It turns out that it's more profitable to buy up an existing brand and slowly cheap out on the product (basically capitalizing the reputation) than it is to continue to produce a quality product.
I believe the change you're observing is the result of the widespread adoption of computers. This is what a data-driven society looks like. Corporations have the ability to finetune the margins of exactly how much anti-consumerism they can get away with before upsetting enough people that a given anti-consumer decision isn't more profitable than not doing it.
In a sense, it is the people's fault for their current level of tolerance, but at the same time, a data-driven society will converge on an equilibrium just within the razor-thin margin of what people will tolerate, in the name of 'efficiency'.
> And I realized, this is what people want, in the sense of this is what they will pay for, this is how they vote with their wallet. What I want is not this, but it is what society wants.
I don't think you can really say they want it, because in many instances they are manipulated or have no other choice.
Bag of chips started to fill up with more air and less chips, candy bars got smaller, airlines started reducing seat sizes.
The phrase you're looking for is "value engineering."
There are also other factors.
Part of the reason that Pringles cans are mostly air is so that the soap company that makes them can sell fewer chips, but retain the same amount of visual space on the store shelf. The product is the billboard. Some brands pay for that space on the shelf, so they're going to use every bit of it.
This is what they discovered through the equivalent of A/B testing. People are disappointed in a 5% increase in price, especially if it crosses a magical threshold, but they will accept a smaller product. They will favor the smaller product over the larger one if it is given in the right container, such as a rounded carton of ice cream over a larger brick. They see the rounded container as evidence of higher quality. And on and on.
Needing a app to turn on a light, though, that's just weird.
One of the arguments I have heard that he did not have a proof is the following.
He wrote his note in his copy of Arithmetica around 1637.
He most likely wrote his proof for the case of n=4 in the 1640s.
He sent letters to other mathematicians in 1640, 1657 where he talks about the case of n=3 but writes in such a way that it seems like he does not have the answer.
Why would he write n=4 after? If he had a generalized proof?
Why would he tease other mathematicians with a special case in 1657 if he already had a generalized proof?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49601814#49603709
reply