> If there's one point where OSS stands like a sore thumb (derogatory) is in everything that makes it welcoming to general users
Depending on the circle (including lots of circles of "general users") annoying people who are obsessed about whether something could offend snowflakes is seen as welcoming.
You have two parties who want to enter into a contract and a third party unrelated to the contract that doesn’t for whatever reason. Just based on contract law and common sense the unrelated party shouldn’t have standing. Now if there’s externalities to the contract that impact that unrelated party sure, but only insofar as to get those externalities addressed.
This is not the same as a robbery which involves no contract or a willing counterparty to the robbery.
Yeah, IME, if the guests of the rental acted exactly like locals, and the units were not removed from the local housing supply (not sure how that could be), or the local housing supply was in excess to the needs of the population (not sure where that is), it would be fine.
I don’t understand why the local housing supply is privileged in your scenario. And if the local housing supply is a problem it’s one the locals created themselves so…
You believe that the local area has no standing, that's incorrect. Laws and regulations are third parties impeding on the contract all the time. Libertarians may dislike this, but it's one problem with democracy - the majority make decisions you don't like.
>
Programmers have enjoyed an occupation with solid stability and growing opportunities.
This is not the case:
- Before the 90s, programming was rather a job for people who were insanely passionate about technology, and working as a programmer was not that well-regarded (so no "growing opportunities").
- After the burst of the first dotcom bubble, a lot of programmers were unemployed.
- Every older programmer can tell you how fast the skills that they have can become and became irrelevant.
Over the last decade, the stability and opportunities for programmers was more like a series of boom-bust cycles.
Let me put it this way: I do have my opinion on this topic, but this whole topic is insanely multi-faceted, and some claims that I am rather certain about are more at the boundaru of the Overton window of HN, so I won't post it here.
But the article which the whole discussion is about
offers in my opinion a rather balanced perspective regarding using AI for coding (which does not mean that this article is near to my opinion).
I will just give some less controversial thoughts and advices concerning AI:
- A huge problem when discussing AI is that the whole topic is a hodgepodge of various very diverse topics.
- The (current) AI industry has invested a lot of marketing efforts to re-define what AI stood for in the past (it basically convinced the mass of people that "AI = what we are offering")
- I cannot say whether AI will be capable of replacing lots of people in office jobs or not (I have serious doubts). Media loves to disseminate this topic, but in my opinion it does not really matter: the agenda is rather to spread fear among employees to make them more obedient.
- Even if AI will be capable of replacing only few office workers (a scenario that I rather believe in), it does not mean that management will not use "AI"/"replace by AI" as a very convenient excuse to get rid of lots of employees. The dismissed workers will then mostly vent their spleen on the AI companies instead of the management; in other work: AI is a very convenient scapegoat for inconvenient management decisions.
And yes, I consider it to be possible that some event that leads to mass layoffs might happen in a few years (but this is speculative).
- While I cannot say how much quality improvement is possible for current AI models (i.e. I don't know whether there exists a technological barrier), the signs are clear that as of today AI companies have hit some soft "cost barriers". I don't know whether these are easily solvable or not, but be aware of their existence.
- So, my advice is: if an AI model is of use for some project that you have (e.g. generating graphics/content for your web platform; using it as a tool for developing the next scientific breakthrough; ...), do it now. Don't assume that the models will do this nearly freely for you anymore in the future (it can be that this will stay possible in the possible, but be cautious).
Developers are not lawyers, so they cannot be expected to know every subtle detail of the law, and not how these laws are then interpreted (in a often non-logical way) by courts.
The layer lines are much less pronounced when you use a 0.25 mm nozzle with an appropriate layer height instead of a 0.4 mm nozzle (the possible quality is even on the brink to satisfy people who use 3D printing for producing miniatures). The prize you need to pay is of course the print time.
> Top surfaces must be impeccably smooth without any stepping.
In the last years there was a lot of progress on ironing features in slicers, which mitigates this issue:
Another very recent addition to mitigate the perceived problem is the recent addition of "fuzzy skin" features in slicers, which by making the surfaces look "more rough" hides the imperfections of the FDM printing process.
--
Another solution is to simply use resin printing instead of FDM printing for finished products if feasible.
> I think most engineers vastly overestimate how important high quality, maintainable, reliable code is to product success.
Rather: Many software developers overestimate how important high quality, maintainable, reliable code is to initial product success.
Once the product is highly successful, a high quality, maintainable, reliable code pays huge dividends - and I have a strong feeling that most business people vastly underestimate this dividend.
Vibecoding to production and $1mil ARR (random number) now proves out the application basics and market value which pays for it to be redone correctly :)
There won't be a re-do, there will be a feature request pipeline. Correct is a term of art and unlikely to come into it. If you start losing customers because of reliability, they'll ask Claude to fix it. If that doesn't work you're gonna be in trouble, because you won't have people.
> Maybe the answer is a tentative yes, given news like the recent case about guns and 3D printing.
In my observation these news lead to maker nerds "prepper-buying" (get such a machine before they become forbidden) quite a lot of such machines recently. :-)
> Yes. Met those guys in my TechShop days. They also insisted that 3D printers should be made with 3D printers, which resulted in a generation of flimsy, inaccurate machines.
I do believe that this vision is basically correct, but the implementation of these eager 3D printing enthusiasts was deeply flawed:
There exist lots of designs of really good 3D printers on the internet that are at least partly 3D-printed. So at least a relevant subset of the parts of a 3D printer can be 3D-printed. The reason why commercial 3D printers are typically not 3D-printed is rather aesthetics and the fact that for large-scale manufacturing there typically exist much cheaper production techniques.
As people by now have realized (and some of these points were told to these eager 3D printing enthusiasts from beginning on), the correct approach to get towards an exceptional "mostly 3D-printed 3D printer" is rather:
- Improve 3D printers so that even more parts of a 3D printer can be 3D-printed in high quality (e.g. by improving sensors and software to increase precision; make the 3D printer capable of handling engineeering materials; ...)
- Use a 3D printer to produce parts for machines that can be used to produce parts for a 3D printer, such as CNC mill, CNC lathe, pick and place machine (for populating the PCBs) etc.
Both of these aspects are hot topics that people work on.
In other words: Accept for now that many, but not all parts of a 3D printer can currently sensibly be 3D-printed, and invest serious efforts to develop solutions how 3D printing can be used to enable a high-quality production of these remaining parts.
Sure, and that's useful but not revolutionary nor exclusive to 3D printers. You can use a milling to mill a bunch of pieces for a milling machine. You can use a PCB printer to print the PCBs for a PCB printer. A 3D printer is much, much closer to this than it is to a self-replicating machine.
A classic manual Bridgeport mill, a foundry for making castings, a heat-treating furnace, a steel planer, a lathe, a drill press, a grinder, and a supply of steel is enough for a master machinist to reproduce all that. That's what was used to make machine tools in the first half of the 20th century.
"One Print, Multiple Components: Pick & Place Tool
Some technical prints require additional components, such as magnets, threaded inserts, or bearings, to be placed during the build. Without automation, this typically means you have to pause the print and insert the part(s) by hand. Although PrusaSlicer made this process easier a while ago, The Pick & Place toolhead can do it for you, completely autonomously. This reduces manual intervention and improves placement accuracy.
We’ve co-developed the toolhead with the Zurich University of Applied Sciences (ZHAW) and it’s designed for models that combine 3D-printed models with off-the-shelf components. We’re currently targeting late 2026 with its implementation."
Depending on the circle (including lots of circles of "general users") annoying people who are obsessed about whether something could offend snowflakes is seen as welcoming.
reply