The Economics of content platforms already started destroying the internet. A lot of the reason the internet was so good for a long time was faith by creators that good content would win, that turned out to be false.
Humans seek to understand phenomena and they use narratives to accomplish that. Accepting that there are multiple factors always involved and chaos reigns is disturbing.
Yup, likewise Starlink - while space internet is an interesting and viable concept (whether it'll earn itself back is another question, I'm not convinced), the real motivation behind it was to create demand for many SpaceX launches. There have been 352 Starlink launches [0] so far, out of 596 total [1]. If it wasn't for Starlink, SpaceX would only have been operating at 1/3 to 1/2 of what it does today, cutting into their "economics of scale". And they'll need demand to make Starship viable, the possible moon missions aren't enough to fund or justify the whole project. Hence also the ideas of colonising Mars, which - if someone is willing to pay for it - would create a large and steady demand for launches / flights.
I always wanted to crunch the numbers but never got around to it, so I'm glad someone actually went and did it. YC company IPOs always smelled like pump-and-dump than a true liquidity/fundraising event, and if those numbers are correct, I was right. Or to put it another way, if someone asks "should I buy IPO shares in a YC company", the answer is "no".
Absolutely. What we’re seeing is a familiar pattern in tech: when things go well, the rewards are private, but when the risks build up—whether financial, regulatory, or technical—they get socialized onto the public. IPOs become a way to offload responsibility, recapitalize, and let early stakeholders cash out while passing long-term uncertainties to a broader set of investors and the market itself.
Closest I guess is hiring of juniors is down, but it's possibly just due to a post COVID pullback being credited to AI.
I definitely think a lot of junior tasks are being replaced with AI, and companies are deciding it's not worth filling junior roles at least temporarily as a result.
I don’t think this is unique to software. Across the US over the past decades there’s been a massive contraction in companies being willing to “train-up” employees. It’s greedy, and it works for their bottom lines. But it’s a tragedy of the commons and a race to the bottom. It also explains the dearth of opportunities for getting into the trades, despite sky-high demand.
If anything, the expectations for an individual developer have never been higher, and now you’re not getting any 22-26 year olds with enough software experience to be anything but a drain on resources when the demand for profitability is yesterday.
Maybe we need to go back to ZIRP if only to get some juniors back on to the training schedule, across all industries.
For other insanely toxic and maladaptive training situations, also see: medicine in the US.
> I definitely think a lot of junior tasks are being replaced with AI
I think team expansion is being reduced as well. If you took a dev team of 5, armed them all with Claude Code + training on where to use it and where not to I think you could get the same productivity as hiring 2 additional FTE software devs. I'm assuming your existing 5 devs fully adopt the tool and not reject it like a bad organ transplant. Maybe an analogy could be the invention of email reducing the need for corporate typing pools and therefore fewer jr. secretaries ( typists) are hired.
/i'm just guessing that being a secretary is in the career progression path of someone in the typing pool but you get the idea.
edit: one thing i missed in my email analogy is that when email was invented it was free and available to anyone that could set up sendmail/*.MTA
> I definitely think a lot of junior tasks are being replaced with AI
one last thing to point out then my lunch is over. I think AI coding agents are going to hit services/marketplaces like Fiverr especially hard. I think the AI agents are the new gig-economy with respect to code, I spent about $50 on Claude Code pay-as-you-go over the past 3 days to put together a website i've had in the back of my mind for months. Claude Code got it to a point where I can easily pick up and run with to finish it out over a few more nights/weekends. UI/UX is especially tedious for me and Claude Code was able to take my vague descriptions and make the interface nicely organized and contemporary. The architecture is perfectly reasonable for what i want to do ( Auth0 + react + python(flask) + postgres + an OAuth2 integration to a third party ). It got all of that about 95% right on the first try.. for $50!. Services/marketplaces like Fiverr have to be thinking really hard right now.
From the pharma side, I have heard discussions with other technology companies who insisted on a share of discovery revenue. Nothing has ever killed discussions so quickly.
reply