COBOL isn't a legacy language. It's domain specific language that is designed for exactly what banks need: high precision math without floating point errors.

Any Comp Sci student should be able to take what they learned and apply that to COBOL.

What actually sets COBOL devs apart is their attention to detail and ability to do math.

Even if backend banking code was written in TypeScript, they would still have to hire the best of the best to work on it. You can't have errors at that level.

If the employees are being paid for every hour they work or have stock to make up the difference, sure, maybe long weeks make sense.

But volunteering free labor so someone else can be rich is pretty foolish.

A junior developer earns $10 an hour because it takes them 10 hours to solve a problem.

A senior developer bills $100 an hour because the same 10-hour project takes one hour. The productivity gain is reflected in higher value, not lower pay.

If AI reduces audit time, that is a measurable productivity gain. But time reduction alone does not define value.

If AI also improves detection, reduces risk, and increases reliability, then the value of the audit may increase even as the hours decrease.

Pricing purely on hours assumes the service is nothing more than labor input. That ignores quality improvements, risk reduction, and reputational impact, which are often the real economic drivers of an audit.

There is room to balance time savings with cost savings. But focusing only on reducing fees risks treating AI as a cost cutter rather than a capability enhancer.

Instead of asking how much cheaper an audit can become, firms should be asking whether improved audit quality expands trust, strengthens legitimacy, and ultimately supports market growth.

Cutting costs can increase margins in the short term. Improving quality and legitimacy is what sustains them.

Online, there are interesting shops everywhere with niche products. But they do nothing for local neighborhoods.

If you work from home, you can make a good living paying a single mortgage or rent payment. But if you want to sell something, now you have to pay for a second location.

If small towns want to be interesting and invite investment, then they need to make it possible for people to run small businesses out of their garages or front porches. They could cap annual revenue if they wanted to limit it to upstarts.

But the system is deliberately designed so that you need to have substantial money already if you want to run a business. You're not allowed to start small and grow.

Geocities tried to turn the internet into a city and failed. But with VR, it could be done. People could rent virtual space so that people could actually browse products and talk to shop owners and other people. Roblox is perfectly suited to it with "games" being turned into "shopping districts" and you can go in with just your friends or see everyone. It's just missing the integration with ecommerce and lacks professionalism.

Capitalists don't want to pay educated people. They get in the way of oligarchy.

Humans are not just robots that need to be task trained.

College make people educated as whole humans. The real problem is that women and minorities are more interested in college than white men. So we have to pretend college isn't worth the time.

Only 38% of the US is college educated.

And it shows.

Get college educated and stop putting idiots in positions of authority.

Using AI to write your complaint is a perfectly valid use of AI. It maintains your points, cleans up the language, and makes it impossible to say who the author is just by the writing style.

The question is entirely whether the accusations are true.

And gig companies are absolutely exploiting workers and customers, while the specific details listed may or may not be true.

If you work 40 hours a week and can't afford a house, a car, a family, putting your kids through college, and an annual multiweek vacation, you're being robbed by your boss.

If AI could replace humans, it also replaces corporations.

AI is not taking jobs. It's just the latest excuse to outsource. The myth is that Idiot + AI = competent worker. But that isn't the case.

If corporations were run by smart people, they'd be using AI to speed up their roadmaps and rush ahead of the competition. Or come up with new pet projects for people to work on.

If Zuckerberg can build wealth with AI and not workers, then the workers can build wealth with AI and not Zuckerberg.

If AI replaced corporations, they'd shut it down. And it already is. But not yet to the degree that it upsets them.

The problem is not AI. The problem is not paying people. If you create a product people like and it makes you money, pay people to displace your reliance on AI.

Wanting a "people's car" was inevitable.

That's the business not investing in the people and the resources to move ahead. "Missing deadlines" also often stems from demands exceeding resources.

From the 1990's to the 2020's, Intel was more focused on profit and shareholders than investing in people and R&D.

It’s telling that Gelsinger described a culture where “not a single product was delivered on schedule” — and yet, that might be more of a symptom than the disease. In many industries, the obsession with arbitrary timelines and “on-schedule delivery” metrics becomes corrosive. When deadlines are treated as fixed points rather than guides, quality and innovation become secondary to appearances of progress.

Artificial timelines often create environments where teams are punished for realism and rewarded for overpromising. Engineering — whether of chips, cars, or code — demands time to iterate, test, and refine. When leadership values the schedule more than the product, people cut corners to meet goals that were never grounded in the reality of the work. Over time, that behavior institutionalizes mediocrity.

What Gelsinger called “decay” often begins when organizations forget that timelines are supposed to serve the work, not the other way around. Real engineering discipline means being honest about what’s possible — and having the courage to move a date if that’s what it takes to deliver something that lasts.

Corporations don’t exist to hand out jobs — completely agree. They hire people because human creativity, judgment, and problem-solving generate more value than they cost. That’s the foundational engine of economic growth.

But saying “companies don’t create work to hire people” assumes the amount of work is fixed, like slices of a pie. History tells a different story. Every major leap in technology — electricity, assembly lines, computers, the internet — didn’t eliminate work overall. It created whole new industries, new products, new forms of demand, and millions of jobs that never existed before someone imagined them.

The real question today is: will companies use automation to expand opportunity, or will they let fear and short-term profit pressures shrink their vision to whatever fits after payroll cuts? Treating workers as a cost to minimize is the fastest way to shrink your own future. Redeploying them to innovate, build, support customers, and explore new markets is how productivity becomes prosperity.

Humans haven’t become too expensive. What’s become too expensive — at least in the corporate mindset — is patience. Investment. Shared success. The belief that people are not just an expense line, but the actual source of value creation.

If we want a thriving economy, the answer isn’t fewer workers. It’s smarter, more meaningful roles that turn technological progress into shared wealth rather than shared precarity.

It’s definitely true that a lot of companies are cutting workers right now — and that creates real anxiety about where things are headed. But I think the narrative that “humans have become too expensive” flips the real issue upside-down.

Labor isn’t what’s skyrocketed in cost. CEO pay, shareholder expectations, and relentless targets for profit growth are. Companies keep raising prices even while laying off thousands, not because they can’t afford workers, but because they prioritize margins over stability for the people who actually create value.

The biggest missed opportunity here is that automation doesn’t have to be a replacement strategy — it can be a redeployment strategy. When new technology lets humans spend less time on low-value labor, companies can empower them to drive innovation, serve customers better, develop new products, and ultimately create more wealth. That’s how productivity gains should work.

But too many businesses think like accountants, not builders. They treat labor as a line item to subtract, instead of a force multiplier. They cut payroll and congratulate themselves for “efficiency,” even as they shrink their own future potential.

AI and automation could give us shorter weeks, better jobs, and broader prosperity — but only if we stop treating human well-being as an inconvenient expense and start seeing workers as the engines that turn technological progress into shared abundance.

The future isn’t precarious because humans are too expensive — it’s precarious because profit has become priceless, and imagination too cheap.

The Internet Archive’s fundamental duty is to preserve human knowledge — to ensure that cultural, scholarly, and historical materials are not lost to time, obscurity, or commercial impermanence. Preservation does not mean competing with publishers, nor does it mean undermining legitimate markets. It means ensuring that when something ceases to be readily available, it can still be found, studied, and remembered.

If a book is commercially available, widely distributed, and maintained by its rightsholders, then it is not in danger of disappearing. There is nothing for the Archive to “preserve” in that case; the responsibility lies with publishers and distributors. For such works, the Archive’s role should be standby stewardship — maintaining a secure, non-public copy to ensure continuity of access if and when availability lapses.

In contrast, for works that have fallen out of print, lost their commercial distribution, or exist in fragile physical form, the Archive’s duty is active and urgent. These are the works at real risk of vanishing, and preserving them — including through controlled digital lending — serves the public good and the historical record.

This approach strikes a balance between copyright compliance and cultural preservation:

The Archive would withhold digital access to works that are actively in print or licensed.

It would, however, retain preservation copies in its secure collections.

And it would make these available again only if those works become unavailable through ordinary channels.

By adopting this preservation-first, access-conditional model, the Internet Archive fulfills its mission without infringing upon the rights or revenues of living markets — ensuring that the world’s knowledge remains safe, even when the commercial world moves on.

This is progress. The USB-C cable and charger is no longer new tech, and cheap versions that work well enough are readily available. Devices should start advertising the recommended wattage and let stores stock chargers sorted by that.

The C-Suite is filled with ignorant people who have made a career out taking credit for other people's work.

Now they want to pretend that the "AI is writing the code" just because a developer is making use of it.

All AI is doing is giving CEOs an excuse to called yet another group of workers, "unskilled."