> Meanwhile, my cofounder is rewriting code we spent millions of salary on in the past by himself in a few weeks.
This is one of those statements that would horrify any halfway competent engineer. A cowboy coder going in, seeing a bunch of code and going 'I should rewrite this' is one of the biggest liabilities to any stable system.
As someone who is more involved in shaping the product direction rather than engineering what composes the product - I will readily admit many product people are utterly, utterly clueless.
Most people have no clue the craftsmanship, work etc it takes to create a great product. LLMs are not going to change this, in fact they serve as a distraction.
I’m not a SWE so I gain nothing by being bearish on the contributions of LLMs to the real economy ;)
This is a pretty insane attempt to rationalize an incredibly racist remark and it's not going to work the way you think it will. It's not even worthwhile to try and address your arguments.
I feel like the thing like you can easily divide things along the lines of 'art' vs 'consumption'.
A lot of people including myself enjoy music because it's so intimately human, the flaws and all. It's someone putting a bit of themselves into every piece they create, and people look for things that resonate with them.
AI music however is purely about consumption. It's not something made to be remembered or cherished. And the more you integrate it into your music, the less and less of yourself you put into it and the less reason for anyone to bother. I could just ask whatever AI to generate generic rock music inspired by the beatles and remove you from the equation entirely and have the same experience. Everything gets amalgamated into the exact same thing with all of the imperfections sheared away.
I think we need to start distinguishing between art-music and utilitarian-music.
Art-music is made by humans as a way of expressing yourself and making human connections.
Utilitarian-music can be made by humans or machines and is there to serve a purpose. Background music for the elevator or while you’re on hold. An ambient soundscape that you play in an airport terminal. It’s not meant to move people, it’s just there to fill silence.
> This is a contentious issue, but if we can set it aside for the moment, I believe D and R can come together to solve x y and z
I'm curious: Where does your line of thought actually end? Do you agree that they should perhaps meet Republicans in the center around vaccine issues and dismantle vaccine requirements? What about issues of climate change? Corruption?
It ends when they can win powerful majorities in elections again. What I said is only controversial because the topic is relatively well supported. But if you look at it as a party supporting a topic that is preventing them from winning elections, it doesn't really matter what that topic is, they need to rethink their platform until they can win elections again.
It might sound unsavory to say that they should drop <issue you think is important>, like climate change, but if that were genuinely the reason they're losing then of course they should drop it. The alternative is you just have a party of ideologues with no power. They can still do good things without doing <important thing>.
I just don't think any issue is as contentious as abortion, or having as much of an effect, because you can hold your nose about a lot of things, but not about 'murdering babies'. Again, this is a moral hard line that a lot of people have. They seriously think that Democrats are ontologically evil because of this; it's far beyond the political. I don't think they need to drop those things you listed from the platform because I don't think it would help them win.
From talking with Republican or centrist or ex-democrat peers and family, some of them would vote Democrat "if they stop killing babies", and others would "if they stopped the racial shit". I've never heard anyone say such a thing about anything you listed.
i.e. Abortion is generally supported by 63% of the overall population, 85% of Democrats and 67% of moderate/liberal Republicans. I don't see how you'd ever convince Democrats to drop it to cater primarily to conservative republicans.
I asked you, specifically, where your line was at. If the dems were losing because they thought people getting shot in the street by government agents were bad, should they instead say 'actually, a little murder is alright'? What about gay marriage? First amendment rights?
The notion that they should compromise with people whose ideals align with literally killing people or taking away rights is a notion I reject. I will never, ever vote for a democrat that compromises in the way you suggest so they can choose which side they want to try and get votes from.
Well I typically vote Republican, so I can only speculate. But let's imagine that 70% of people support ICE, and those people would never ever vote against ICE, because they think that is evil; everything else is the same.
In such a world, the Dems have no power, because they get 30% of the vote at most. They should stop fighting ICE so that they can at least do something on their agenda. The choice is between passing some good legislation unrelated to ICE, or never being able to pass any legislation. Obviously the former is better.
At the end of the day it's a democracy. The people vote for what they want, and then get it. The people originate the ideas that are available to be implemented. The notion of a democratic representative refusing to do what is needed to get votes is meaningless. It's the notion of a political idea that is refusing to be believed in, so must become irrelevant.
Anyway, your whole train of thought presupposes correctness and righteousness and that change to certain things is not on the table. If somehow the Democrats shrunk to the size of the Libertarian party because they held onto all that, you could keep voting for them, but real politics continues without you. I am suggesting they change before that shrinkage occurs, not after or never.
> But my only real question is how many more Americans need to be killed before you admit that maybe us critics have a point?
Unfortunately, they will never admit this, because either they believe every action by ICE is justified or they're straight up an agent of the government. It doesn't matter if you show them videos of ICE agents hitting protesters with their car and doing the exact thing they demonize [1], or if they walk up and assault people for using their first amendment rights [2], or if they spray people point blank with pepper spray [3] or if they ram people through red lights [4] or if they knee people in the face repeatedly when they're complying [5] or if they shove someone onto oncoming traffic and almost get them killed by a bus [6] or walking up to people and asking 'papers, please' [7]. They will conveniently disengage or shift the argument away.
You're not even safe in your own home, considering they've been doing door to door warrantless raids throughout Minneapolis. The fascists want people to be afraid and they're willing to do everything they can.
> Have you really never voted for a candidate who went on to do things you didn't agree with? It's a quintessential fact of politics that voting for a candidate is not equivalent to an endorsement of everything that candidate does in the future.
You can look back on everything Trump said and campaigned on. He's a liar, a cheat, and a fraud but he openly campaigned on making people suffer, hurting specific groups and demolishing the government. The people either voted for him assuming he was blustering about his claims or liked what he was going to do. There's countless examples of people who when asked why they regret voting for Trump, they say because he's 'hurting the wrong people', while also saying that they would gladly vote for him again.
People are taking to the streets. People are getting beaten, their property destroyed, their homes invaded and even murdered in Minneapolis as a result. The problem is that the US is massive; most people don't live in an active ICE zone where agents are going door to door kicking it in and pulling people out.
But even then, people are getting angrier. The injustices in Minneapolis triggered waves of protests here in Seattle. Eventually these things compound and more people become aware that we're living in the Great American Collapse.
We're expected to comply with the 'law' and not do anything to impede investigations or ICE activity such as living on the same block as an ICE raid. But they're not expected to comply with the law and actively impede investigations into their activity.
And for reference, ICE as we speak is doing door to door raids in Minneapolis targeting everyone, including American citizens.
This is how tyranny works. 'for my friends everything, for my enemies the law' is the basic premise.
The day before these people said a woman deserved to be shot in the face 3 times for bumping into a federal officer they said that January 6th was peaceful and celebrated a president pardoning... people that attacked federal officers.
They’re literally Trump’s private gestapo army. Their actions are what gestapo did historically. And they’re only accountable to Trump, with no mechanism to hold anyone accountable.
A new police force is needed to arrest the president and others in the executive branch who break the law. Otherwise the political system of America is broken.
This is one of those statements that would horrify any halfway competent engineer. A cowboy coder going in, seeing a bunch of code and going 'I should rewrite this' is one of the biggest liabilities to any stable system.
reply