I hope he's right! I'm terrified that like 4 companies own my entire life now. I do love the movement back to analog single-purpose devices. Would be neat if they had just enough tech to make them useful but not weaponized against me.
As an aside, can they bring back Symbian OS and Windows Phone?
> Stuff like this reads to me like someone wants the internet to be happy fun time that only ever gives me an endless supply of good things to consume and filters out all the bad.
I think the dichotomy is more "curated commercial ecosystem of mass-appeal winners" vs "the full spectrum of human experience and perspectives that requires effort on the part of the listener to find what is worth listening to".
Personally, I prefer the latter. You get out what you put in and the best podcasts (for me) have always been passionate people trying to share things with others. There are definitely some with high production value that I would (and do) miss but they were never sustainable to begin with so nothing truly lost there.
Podcasting will always be able to endure in its most basic form: two people, a mic, and an RSS feed.
I suppose that sentence would make sense if „good“ and „bad“ were in quotes.
I would read it as <<there‘s plenty unique and interesting shows out there which might lack some polish („the bad“). I don‘t only want polished, boring, mass appeal shows from large production houses („the good“).>>
It's that such a thing cannot ever exist. If you're relying on a curated experience, then there are going to be competing interests influencing how your feed is curated.
When I let my kids have freedom in the various stores we go into, I get nearly instant looks of disgust from people. It's like everybody has forgotten what it's like to be a kid and why that kind of independence is necessary. Socially it's verboten.
This is interesting. I've been away from the high-code world for a while and instead of going back to Java, I might try out c#. Thanks for the writeup.
I remember talking about this with a friend a long time ago. Basically, you'd write up tests and there was a magic engine that would generate code that would self-assemble and pass tests. There was no guarantee that the code would look good or be efficient--just that it passed the tests.
We had no clue that this could actually happen one day in the form of gen AI. I want to agree with you just to prove that I was right!
This is going to bring up a huge issue though: nailing requirements. Because of the nature of this, you're going to have to spec out everything in great detail to avoid edge cases. At that point, will the juice be worth the squeeze? Maybe. It feels like good businesses are thorough with those kinds of requirements.
How would you handle production incidents in such a codebase? The primary focus of a software engineer is to make the codebase easy (or at least possible) to understand. To tame complexity while achieving some business objectives. If we're going to just throw that part out the window you need to have a plan for how to operate the resultant mess
in production.
This is random, but if you're ever in the Corning area, do check out the Corning Museum of Glass. They did a really great job of blending an experience of history, art, creation, and science in there. The history of glass areas in particular made me really emotional seeing art expressed in this way. The fact that something so old was made it this far through time.
This is even more random, but Harvard's Ware Collection of Blaschka Glass Models of Plants is my single favorite natural history collection anywhere in the world. It alone is worth a trip to Cambridge!
It's incredible to a layperson, and if you've ever done any glass working whatsoever you'll be moved close to tears.
reply