Thanks for making my point for me there bro

I'm going to go ahead and assume bad faith on your part, because otherwise you're very stupid. But nobody in your potential audience is stupid enough to believe there aren't lasting effects to being bombed to shit.

I take your point about this being before the dawn of ubiquitous tech companies, but what kind of chilling effect did the Bell monopoly have?

Do you think about me when you're jerking off, too? I know you do.

It would take an AI to not get bored trying to construct working configs for SElinux

Open source software has always been about freely sharing source code. There have always been many kinds of licenses, some of which share the code only with those who also share their code. Some make the code totally free for any purpose. Some require payment for commercial uses.

This is not a new phenomenon. If you create open source software, you get to pick the license! If you want payment from some users, then go ahead, charge them for it, it's your prerogative! What are you griping about, exactly?

This is already an option. For those who want to sell their software, they can do so, and make it free for noncommercial use.

Microsoft does this today, with SQL Server and Visual Studio. Both are free for noncommercial use.

Lots of other titles do the same. This is *not* open source.

I don't think the point is to deny that AI is useful. It's to point out that it has become a handy excuse for layoffs, regardless of the usefulness of AI.

Perhaps you did not buy a Tesla. They are probably the most service-hostile vehicle ever sold in the US. Not sure about the UK, I haven't heard stories (horror or otherwise) about service for Chinese EVs yet. They would have to try really hard to be worse than Tesla, though.

Haven't we learned by now that you have to do programming in bite-sized pieces, or we lose track of the requirements?

Just because AI *can* ingest large, complex prompts, doesn't mean we should feed these to them. Break down the prompts into small, bite-sized chunks. Feed them to the AI one bit at a time, so that you can review manageable chunks of code changes at a time. Otherwise, your review is worthless.

The pressure to work more house has been a thing as long as I've been in software, since the 1980s. The reasons to draw boundaries around your work hours have been important for just as long.

I guess it's like taking your kids to grandma's house. The kids always forget all the rules you've taught them, because the setting is different, and there's so much stimulation.

The kids--and we--have to understand that boundaries are still important.

Thus practice may be very bad for your health. Not that these "executives" care, but you should.

Yes. And that is how AWS got their 13 hour (?) outage. That outage was probably more expensive than what they can save in cost over a year or several by using LLMs as surrogate coders.

Why stop there? Make it part of the start-up message and if there is none, add one!

Well, the routinely clueless economics graduates certainly think so. My take is that in a few years actually competent coders will be in high demand to fix the mess and out out a lot of fires. When that happens and if you are inclined to participate, make them pay through the nose.