Agree. Gemini and Claude are both super useful, so long as they are used properly. I haven't had as much luck with other models, so I stick with these two.

But how you use them, and how much you use them, depends greatly on the nature of your project. It still requires intelligence and skill to use them well, and if you use them poorly the results will burn you. And for some specific parts of a total solution, you simply can't use them, and will need to do those parts yourself. And it is on you to recognize which parts those are.

If you fall into the trap of just letting some tool like Cursor or Claude Code "do it all" for you, you will end up like the people in this article. Both of these are useful tools, but there is no other way to say it: you have to use them wisely. And you have to know what you are doing. If you are using them to solve problems that are too hard for you to solve, you (and your codebase) will drown.

Gamestop charges way too much for used games. I can buy one much cheaper on ebay. Similarly, gamestop pays way too little for used games, and I can sell one for more on ebay. I guess that makes their interest in buying ebay kind of make sense.

The last time I walked into a gamestop I saw walls covered in toys. And trading cards too. The market is clearly shifting.

New tech has never and will never benefit workers in-and-of itself.

The only way for workers to reap the benefits of new tech is to force the issue through law and/or unionization.

I am well aware of the problematic nature of unions, and of the problematic nature of over regulation of business. That doesn't change the fact that they are the only two tools we have to improve our working conditions. If we don't use what we have to push for what we want, then we won't get what we want. It's that simple.

Since when did product longevity matter?

Since when did employees matter?

I'm amused at how petty that billionaire's make-money-fa$t schemes are. Selling steaks? Tennis shoes? Bibles?

What other billionaire does this to get richer?

Ah, binary.

Ageism is illegal. But that isn't stopping Fidelity from ditching the senior level staff to replace them with a bunch of greenies.

Yeah, in our money-obssessed world "ethics" is opt-in for businesses.

for us to just forget him.

You're free to make up your own definitions for words, but it makes communication difficult.

BTW, does Wotan exist? Do you "not believe he does" or "believe he doesn't" ?

And what do you call your position?

Fortunately they're exempt from any ethical duty.

I think maybe you are joking. But in any case, I will offer some clarity:

There are rival interpretations that equally account for the experimental data, and some of them include randomness while others are purely deterministic.

For example, the Copenhagen interpretation includes randomness in the vector state collapse (the moment when a particle is "measured" by some interaction with another). Whereas pilot wave theory posits the existence of a zero-volume particle that had a specific position prior to this interaction (giving determinism back). These models differ in other ways of course, but the math DOES work and it covers the experimental data.

So the bottom line is that "quantum mechanics" does not automatically tell us whether or not the universe is deterministic at the "bottom layer." Plenty of scientists have all picked their favorite interpretation, but there is as of yet no experimental data that definitively eliminates the popular rival interpretations.

Most people have an above-average number of limbs.

You are both wrong. "Agnisticism" is the strong position that some categories of knowledge cannot be attained by any means. In particular and relevantly: knowledge about the pre-big-bang origins of the universe (was it created? can anything be known about the creator? etc.).

This is not philosophical laziness, it is in fact the only position consistent with the philosophical skepticism that backs the scientific method. It is not a word used to avoid smears or somehow associated with apathy. It is specifically the position that we can't know either way.

Given the means of knowledge at our disposal it is straight-up true to say that we cannot know, for sure, whether or not the universe was created. Maybe you don't like this fact, but as of today, it remains a fact.