I also found inconsistent results (across time and similar inputs) which made it useless for me. I reverted to using LLMs for coding machine learning. I get deterministic outputs that make sense to me, but don’t have to know the ins and outs of how it works (given how it’s applied). I may try Jev in the future for a new problem but unlikely to refactor something that works.

I don’t really understand the emphasis here.

Customers pay for things that are useful. If the token drifts from being a reasonable proxy for what is useful, customers won’t accept being charged on that basis (or jump to the best trade).

If I have an employee who works 1 hour and builds me a beautiful cabinet and another who builds one in the same time, with a door falling off, the one with less productivity per hour (token) is not getting a call back.

Think about the target audience, this technology is being pushed on people with money that don't have the depth of insight that you do.

>Customers pay for things that are useful.

Depends on the definition of useful. In a corporation "useful" is "checks regulatory boxes" - it doesn't need to actually be useful, it must just pretend to be useful. Hence all the shit customer service processes. They are useful to the corporation as in that they tick the "we have customer service" box. Whether the consultant just hangs up on you instantly after picking up doesn't matter.

I have to imagine in several years when you have a wife/husband and kids and ageing parents your views will change.

The point is about economic mobility - of course, people get tied down as they get older.

Middle class people from wealthy nations who move to poor countries are relatively rich by the standards of their new country. Middle class people from poor countries who move to rich countries are relatively poor by the standards of their new country.

Depends. If you are middle class in US with little savings, moving to Europe will probably make your life worse as relative wages are lower for many professions (e.g software eng).

If you are middle class in EU and have little savings, moving to US will do the opposite and you would be better off.

Your comparison holds for the inverse: getting most of your quality of life from static wealth.

Define worse/better.

This comment contradicts your earlier comment though, where you mentioned “poor people have”, a clear reference to wealth rather than earnings.

In the US people don't say "has money" as meaning net worth, they are generally talking about spendable money ie a paycheck unless you're talking about someone super rich who "has money" or "comes from money."

Maybe. Open to the idea others use the same words to mean different things. Will is being imprecise while also being argumentative which is fun.

In my literal mind, someone who spends money has none. They had it. To have money is to be wealthy, not to simply earn it.

That's simply not how it's used in the US then. To spend money is to have it in the first place.

> a clear reference to wealth rather than earnings.

No, sorry, it isn't. People commonly use the phrase "has money" to refer to income in American English.

Two decades learning from others, then close the gate. Can’t ding you for inconsistency though. Your contribution to this discussion is consistent with your new ethos. Good luck with your new approach to the world.

I took his comment to mean that programming jobs should be kept for people who genuinely care about developing a deep understanding and a willingness to learn, instead of those just typing prompts and not really caring beyond that.

That's the charitable way of interpreting it. The less charitable way is that they're bitter that open-source has basically been used to train their replacement, and that they want to turn programming into effectively a guild-based profession to protect the jobs of those presently in the industry. Similar to the button-making guilds of the past, for instance.

> That's the charitable way of interpreting it

It's a good thing that "interpret people's comments charitably" is one of the top guidelines on this forum then

I have animosity for most of them!

can you share specifically what animosity you have towards doctors?

Pulling up the ladder is very common among any kind of society, profession and immigration policies. And people advocate for it all the time.

Haha. I like to say: I do whatever I want, as long as my wife agrees.

I like that framing.

Over the past ~20 years we have benefited from VCs valuing growth and distant payoffs, in part because discount rates were low. Now investors have a preference for nearer term profitability (higher discount rates), thus prices are increasing.

Who collects the cash? Who maintains the kiosks?

First: You can have kiosks (in central locations like metro stations) or you can have dedicated points like where a market collects the cash and they add the balance that way. Second: The public transit company. we aren't splitting the atom here.

Ah, and those services are free?

In London you can top up your Oyster card in many small shops. Maybe someone here can confirm what the financial arrangement is - my assumption is the shop doesn't charge the operator as they get the benefit of more customers spending on other items.

Are the credit card transactions free?

Cheaper than managing cash, which is the relevant comparison.

Citation needed.

Contractors. There are companies that provide cash handling and equipment maintenance services.

Sounds like you’re talking about a very particular type of worker. Many people worldwide are eager to scoop up extra hours.

That would be the difference between a salaried and hourly worker

Uhh what? Literally nobody wants to work more hours. They might want to make more money or get more done but nobody wants to sit in the chair more.

It might also surprise you then, that there are workers who do not sit in chairs.

My broader point is that anyone who can work 4 days instead of 5 and earn the same is an incredibly privileged position. And many others will be nipping at their heels. If you’ve built that moat to allow you to do that sustainably, well done. More often than not, over the long run human drive at a societal level will create competition and this won’t be sustainable.

Disagree. If you're earning enough for a decent quality of life working 4 days, there is no real reason to work 5 days.

Where I live many people choose 20% earnings penalty, because 80% is enough for all needs.

And we remain very competitive on the global scene, as a society. We ensure we make the most of those 80%.

I strongly support 4DWW because I have no problem working 5 days.

Nobody is mentioning the other side of this. Technology creates all of those jobs too. The field of web dev, and the ability to earn an income from as ebook was awesome. Things change and what we should doing is going in eyes wide open.