If you were sincere in your attempt to "empathize with [them] there", your prose screams the opposite. I point this out, as anecdotally, it was quite distracting from the rest of your point and makes me think you are not doing much to meet the other perspective.

Now to directly push on your perspective, I'm not so sure why you make the conclusion that you don't have opportunity for feedback given you've moved to a remote office culture. I am giving you a form of feedback in this instance. Yes it is at my whim and not guaranteed if our interests don't align, however this is a cost of collaboration. It is a bit grim to see the ushering of "coding LLM" as proper replacement here, when you are doing no-more than bootstrapping introspection. This isn't to detract from the value you've found in the tool, I only question why you've written off the collaboration element of unique human experiences interlocking on common ground.

They were likely pushing back on the original comment, such that it isn't solely:

> ...those who decide about how your time is being used...

which stops individuals from:

> [spending] more time thinking, writing, playing piano, and taking walks — with other people.

Which it seems you would agree with. I don't see where they asserted whether this was a problem to address.

Thank you for sharing this. :(

Yeah can't see that lasting. I wish someone would make one with limited adverts that just pays for the hosting and moderation costs. How hard can it be?

I mean nothing is guaranteed to last in the future, but catbox.moe has been around for like a decade already.

If you read the grand parent, they seem to be denying a disruption is taking place industry wide. The adage was used to illustrate how complacency is blinded by the very conditions that enable it, and while this is unfalsifiable and not very conducive to discussion, "fear mongering" is a bit rich to levy.

Further:

> Our industry is being disrupted by AI... No wholesale turkey slaughter.

Is an entirely different position than the GP who is essentially betting on AI producing more jobs for hackers, which surely won't be so simple.

> GP who is essentially betting on AI producing more jobs for hackers

I'm not clear on the point you're trying to make. My comment was in response to dugidugout's analogy.

If I understand their analogy correctly, developers are the well fed turkeys and one Thanksgiving day, we're all getting slaughtered.

That is not hyperbole and fear mongering to you?

Sorry to confuse the thread. I meant to point to the original comment (embedding-shape), but blindly labeled them GP.

We share understanding of their analogy, but differ in the inferred application. I took it as the well fed turkeys are "developers who deny AI will disrupt their industry", not "developers" as a whole.

I'm sure, given the means, the Turkey could have written some convincing prose about their delicious fatty meal.

Odd line to be dancing upon.

Just interested in seeing if it could tease out the portion of the HN crowd who go apoplectic any time they're forced to remember that black people exist, the portion that only know us in the abstract ("He's right! Black people DO 'keep it real!'"), and the tiny minority that will actually understand the point I'm trying to make. I suppose that's bad communication, but you could also say that the medium is (part of) the message.

Suffice it to say, maybe now that DEI is gone, actual good-faith efforts to recognize the hacker ethos in disparate groups, and to bring those individuals into the culture, could take place. The corporate-ization of hacking couldn't have taken place (and could be undone) with an injection of some counterculture. (The post you replied to got flagged to death. That's gotta count for some Punk Points.)

I'll take this sincerely, and ask you, is this really something you've a continuing curiosity about? I have a suspicion you understand what is taking place, but for whatever reason, are not expressing so directly. Are you asserting there is nothing more to discuss after one parses the search results for “chemical imbalance debunked”. The parent is quite clearly, at the minimum, meeting their parent's level of input, which essentially amounted to "this thing is debunked". As an onlooker and after a quick skim of the search query you suggested, I am still not exactly clear on what "neurochemistry issue [theory]" entails. What would help, is a more clear underpinning for what is being discussed, which your parent is suggesting, through question, before attempting to respond. I appreciate this personally!

If you're prescribing a public practice you intend to be taken seriously, you should contend with what happens at scale, especially when evaluating competing alternatives, where comparative scale effects become decisive. Given the article's push for ecosystem-wide support, there's good reason to probe this hypothetical.

It fits the Batman reference, somewhat.

Bruce Wayne (Batman's public-facing identity) was imprisoned in a pit where he was the second person to ever escape.

What I find a bit ironic, is this allegory can be used to reach the opposite perspective OP is trying to dispel. The bit about the "hopefulness" doesn't only refer to the light at the opening of the pit, but also in that the "escape" mechanism was actually being facilitated by the prison. This "escape" was supposedly designed to enact the "true despair" the OP was highlighting. The element they left out, was the fact this was done by extending a "support" rope from the opening which was deliberately too short to be useful. This causes Bruce to muster his own raw physical and mental strength to make the climb without the rope and ultimately prevail through personal will-power.

I guess OP would say Bruce is actually only "broke" here and not "poor".