Stack Overflow's CEO Doesn't Understand Stack Overflow(jlericson.com)
jlericson.com
Stack Overflow's CEO Doesn't Understand Stack Overflow
https://jlericson.com/2023/07/26/not_understanding.html
297 comments
> Not everything needs to be a damn unicorn.
More people needs to understand this. It's fine being a small(ish) business that turns a profit and provides a service that's beneficial to society. You don't need to be a billion dollar company to be important or do great work.
DHH talked about this 15 years ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CDXJ6bMkMY
More people needs to understand this. It's fine being a small(ish) business that turns a profit and provides a service that's beneficial to society. You don't need to be a billion dollar company to be important or do great work.
DHH talked about this 15 years ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CDXJ6bMkMY
But the whole "Tech" economy is based on the premise that everything must grow indefinitely and indefinitely means that at some point will be a unicorn.
Europe is considered economical failure because there are not enough unicorns, there are lists on Twitter with list of unicorns per country that are supposed to show the decline of Europe. No matter if Europe has some of the best living condition for large group of people.
IMHO this thing is ideological, I even feel uneasy mentioning this because it is something we are not supposed to talk since it can start a flamewar and flamewars are how you get your account restricted.
Europe is considered economical failure because there are not enough unicorns, there are lists on Twitter with list of unicorns per country that are supposed to show the decline of Europe. No matter if Europe has some of the best living condition for large group of people.
IMHO this thing is ideological, I even feel uneasy mentioning this because it is something we are not supposed to talk since it can start a flamewar and flamewars are how you get your account restricted.
Between 2009 and today, the US doubled GDP while life expectancies fell. In the EU, GDP is stagnant but life expectancy went up.
Those who say Europe’s economy is a failure should at least consider what the purpose of an economy should even be.
Those who say Europe’s economy is a failure should at least consider what the purpose of an economy should even be.
Consider a city, paying two gardeners 25k each per year, and an extra 5k for two month. Spending is 55k+oil+chemicals+tool maintenance (that the gardeners usually do). Let's say the annualized cost is 75k. So this service contributions to GDP is 75k.
Now, the city wants to show GDP/capita growth. Simple : let's pay a company X that will pay the gardeners. It'll cost 95k. Now the GDP is 95k+ 55k (let's say the gardeners are on the same pay and have the same work). But wait, maintenance can be done by the company Y! Now the GDP is 95k+55k+20k (maintenance fixed cost 10k+worker time 7k+ 3k profit). But wait, now during winter, our gardeners have nothing to do! That eat into our profits!
Now the GDP is 95k + 50k (what is paid to the temp company)+20k+45k, and gardeners are both paid 20k/year gor this job, and can do other stuff during winter (I hear a repair shop need temp workers during inter to fix gardener tools).
The GDP grew from 75k to 160k, a bit more than 100% growth, and we optimized the economy as now gardeners can keep specializing and do gardener stuff during winter instead of learning about motors and mechanics. Great!
Now, the city wants to show GDP/capita growth. Simple : let's pay a company X that will pay the gardeners. It'll cost 95k. Now the GDP is 95k+ 55k (let's say the gardeners are on the same pay and have the same work). But wait, maintenance can be done by the company Y! Now the GDP is 95k+55k+20k (maintenance fixed cost 10k+worker time 7k+ 3k profit). But wait, now during winter, our gardeners have nothing to do! That eat into our profits!
Now the GDP is 95k + 50k (what is paid to the temp company)+20k+45k, and gardeners are both paid 20k/year gor this job, and can do other stuff during winter (I hear a repair shop need temp workers during inter to fix gardener tools).
The GDP grew from 75k to 160k, a bit more than 100% growth, and we optimized the economy as now gardeners can keep specializing and do gardener stuff during winter instead of learning about motors and mechanics. Great!
It doesn't work like that at all. You add GVA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_value_added) of each entities. Adding more intermediate entities doesn't increase GDP as the GVA of each entities is reduced.
Is each transaction added to GDP? In that case it is a really BS number.
Where does the extra money come from? Out of thin air?
GDP isn't money. It's production.
There is an assumption behind GDP: people generally pay production for a fair amount of money. The more untrue this assumption is, the less meaningful GDP is.
There is an assumption behind GDP: people generally pay production for a fair amount of money. The more untrue this assumption is, the less meaningful GDP is.
It's not even production because of that assumption. It's "sum of prices paid" basically
I’m talking in the example ” let's pay a company X that will pay the gardeners. It'll cost 95k.”
Where does that 95k come from?
Where does that 95k come from?
For this specific example? Just like any company's 95k. They got the initial capital from investors, they sold things to customers, they got loans from a bank, etc.
Or you're asking generally where money comes from? It's a good (and complicated) question. Google monetary and banking. In multiple senses, money DOES come out of thin air.
Or you're asking generally where money comes from? It's a good (and complicated) question. Google monetary and banking. In multiple senses, money DOES come out of thin air.
City budget or loans. Easy enough if your mayor have a friend who want to start a gardening company !
I'm joking: even without corruption, you can find an ideological reason, as a company will surely be more efficient than public servants!
But more likely because of incertitude: what do we do if a gardener resign? Paying an existing company 95k/year instead of spending 75k/year directly isn't a huge expense increase, and if 20k/year is the price for peace of mind (no new equipment to buy, no HR issues...) it can very well be worth it.
I'm not saying this is good or bad by the way, i'm saying this is how GDP work. It's factual. Yes, there is a left-wing slant about how i presented it, but it wasn't heavy, and a liberal could use the same example in the same way and justifying a better distribution of work and concerns (while still finding that GDP is worthless in this case)
This is interesting as an indicator, it's meaningless as a target.
I'm joking: even without corruption, you can find an ideological reason, as a company will surely be more efficient than public servants!
But more likely because of incertitude: what do we do if a gardener resign? Paying an existing company 95k/year instead of spending 75k/year directly isn't a huge expense increase, and if 20k/year is the price for peace of mind (no new equipment to buy, no HR issues...) it can very well be worth it.
I'm not saying this is good or bad by the way, i'm saying this is how GDP work. It's factual. Yes, there is a left-wing slant about how i presented it, but it wasn't heavy, and a liberal could use the same example in the same way and justifying a better distribution of work and concerns (while still finding that GDP is worthless in this case)
This is interesting as an indicator, it's meaningless as a target.
But borrowing that money has implications for the economy and other businesses.
This is the mistake the OP made. You can't "goose" GDP by borrowing because that money has to come from somewhere. And the money used to "goose" GDP is money that doesn't go to other productive uses.
This is the mistake the OP made. You can't "goose" GDP by borrowing because that money has to come from somewhere. And the money used to "goose" GDP is money that doesn't go to other productive uses.
This is exactly what GDP means... take everything multiply by price and sum.
wow that is super interesting (although not very surprising). Do you have any sources for this?
Europe: https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/eur/europe/life-expect...
USA: https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/life...
I'm sure there are nuances but according to this particular source European life expectancy went from 75 to 79, US life expectancy went from 78 to 79 with a period of a decline between 2013 and 2018.
USA: https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/life...
I'm sure there are nuances but according to this particular source European life expectancy went from 75 to 79, US life expectancy went from 78 to 79 with a period of a decline between 2013 and 2018.
The decline in US life expectancy is more complex than a general reduction in quality of life, and mostly unrelated to the US financial culture to leads to unicorns. The American ideal of huge companies that must take over the entire market can be traced at least all the way back to the railway robber barons, and has existed even during periods of immense growth in life expectancy.
At the same time, a lot of the increase in life expectancy in the EU is due to improvements in medicine that are significantly driven by US-funded research.
At the same time, a lot of the increase in life expectancy in the EU is due to improvements in medicine that are significantly driven by US-funded research.
Why do you think that actions of these huge institutions are not impactful to the life quality of the Americans?
Also, why do you think that the European live longer thanks to the medicine developed in the USA? Maybe the USA develops medicine thanks to the free and equal opportunity education culture in the Europe? If you look closely to the researchers, you will see that lot's of the people who develop these things have European roots and by roots I don't mean their grandpa was Irish, I mean they were educated in Europe and it just happens that the organisation that develops these drugs is incorporated in the USA.
The tech revolution that changed the world was also developed in Europe, the web was developed by the British in EU institution, Linux was made by a Finnish guy called Linus, Nginx is Russian-made.
Also, we are at a verge of AI revolution and some of the leading researchers are Europe educated people. Just check the bio of the top researchers who were instrumental at Tesla or OpenAI.
Maybe the USA is just the industrial zone of Europe? Maybe the US appears rich and acts poor simply because because the richness comes from the accounting choices? Just kidding of course, the USA is a superpower and is actually rich thanks to many things like its abundant resources and brilliant people but the notion that the Europe is doing better because they just drink smoothies and meditate all day on the American resources and innovation is ridiculous.
Also, why do you think that the European live longer thanks to the medicine developed in the USA? Maybe the USA develops medicine thanks to the free and equal opportunity education culture in the Europe? If you look closely to the researchers, you will see that lot's of the people who develop these things have European roots and by roots I don't mean their grandpa was Irish, I mean they were educated in Europe and it just happens that the organisation that develops these drugs is incorporated in the USA.
The tech revolution that changed the world was also developed in Europe, the web was developed by the British in EU institution, Linux was made by a Finnish guy called Linus, Nginx is Russian-made.
Also, we are at a verge of AI revolution and some of the leading researchers are Europe educated people. Just check the bio of the top researchers who were instrumental at Tesla or OpenAI.
Maybe the USA is just the industrial zone of Europe? Maybe the US appears rich and acts poor simply because because the richness comes from the accounting choices? Just kidding of course, the USA is a superpower and is actually rich thanks to many things like its abundant resources and brilliant people but the notion that the Europe is doing better because they just drink smoothies and meditate all day on the American resources and innovation is ridiculous.
I would love for this to be true. Europeans do seem to enjoy a higher quality of life among several axis.
However the US subsidizes European defense (refer to current events) allowing European countries to spend less GDP on their military.
Talent comes to the US from all over the world. That's how it works and has since almost the beginning of the country.
Easier access to capital (and easy bankruptcy, etc), entrepreneurial mindset (less Tall Poppy syndrome), etc etc means business is generally easier in US.
Linus moved to the US. The web was possible bc the internet was funded by the US (arpanet, etc).
Europeans enjoy the Pax Americana without paying tribute to the Amerian empire.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/nato-spen...
However the US subsidizes European defense (refer to current events) allowing European countries to spend less GDP on their military.
Talent comes to the US from all over the world. That's how it works and has since almost the beginning of the country.
Easier access to capital (and easy bankruptcy, etc), entrepreneurial mindset (less Tall Poppy syndrome), etc etc means business is generally easier in US.
Linus moved to the US. The web was possible bc the internet was funded by the US (arpanet, etc).
Europeans enjoy the Pax Americana without paying tribute to the Amerian empire.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/nato-spen...
Maybe the US is spending so much in defence in it's own interests? Maybe that's how US can enforce business benefits like copyrights to the American corporations and business decisions on what other countries can invest into? Maybe that's why US can print USD at will but other countries have to earn it?
But I like the Linus argument, however this complicates things further: Are tech becoming European when the tech CEO's are having a vacation in the French riviera?
But I like the Linus argument, however this complicates things further: Are tech becoming European when the tech CEO's are having a vacation in the French riviera?
The American military is paid for by debt. The US can only take on this debt because they have the world’s reserve currency. It’s essentially a flat tax on the rest of the world.
Subsidizes????? You mean selling weapons at highly inflated prices benefitting the US economy while eroding Europes industrial base? Not to forget that Europe and Taiwan supplies many of the sub-systems used in US weapons. The Abraham main battle tank gun is German for example.
And by the way Europe has nukes.
And by the way Europe has nukes.
I don't think most of what you wrote, almost phrase by phrase. You took an extreme version of what I said and rebutted it. Just because I said that the US had major influence in European medicine and life expectancy, you took it as meaning that Europeans are bad scientists and "just drink smoothies". I think nothing of this sort.
It's very safe to say that US-originated science had a major influence in life expectancy worldwide, including Europe. What's so controversial about it? The increase in life expectancy in Europe, then, was "significantly" influenced by US innovations.
It's very safe to say that US-originated science had a major influence in life expectancy worldwide, including Europe. What's so controversial about it? The increase in life expectancy in Europe, then, was "significantly" influenced by US innovations.
Of course US "originated" science had influence, just like Russia originated one or Korea originated one. Also, Science is not something you dig from the ground to claim it’s origins. Depending on what you want to claim, you can change your definition. You can claim that we are having it so good thanks to the German science from the 1940s. Pick a cut off date and ownership method to suit your argument needs.
> At the same time, a lot of the increase in life expectancy in the EU is due to improvements in medicine that are significantly driven by US-funded research.
Frankly, I don't believe it's true, for two reasons. First, the European Big Pharma is quite strong. It would be more fair - but not precise - to say the rest of the world benefits from the advances made in the West.
As for the second point, it was succinctly put by Dr. Marcia Angell from The New England Journal of Medicine in her famous book. From the blurb: "Drug companies, she shows, routinely rely on publicly funded institutions for their basic research; they rig clinical trials to make their products look better than they are; and they use their legions of lawyers to stretch out government-granted exclusive marketing rights for years. They also flood the market with copycat drugs that cost a lot more than the drugs they mimic but are no more effective."
Frankly, I don't believe it's true, for two reasons. First, the European Big Pharma is quite strong. It would be more fair - but not precise - to say the rest of the world benefits from the advances made in the West.
As for the second point, it was succinctly put by Dr. Marcia Angell from The New England Journal of Medicine in her famous book. From the blurb: "Drug companies, she shows, routinely rely on publicly funded institutions for their basic research; they rig clinical trials to make their products look better than they are; and they use their legions of lawyers to stretch out government-granted exclusive marketing rights for years. They also flood the market with copycat drugs that cost a lot more than the drugs they mimic but are no more effective."
If the US is funding the research, what is it about the US political system which prevents Americans from enjoying those same gains?
I suggest that perhaps it’s a difference in perspective on rights. In Europe, there is a positive right to healthcare. In the US, there is no such right apart from certain circumstances. We turn our nose up at “handouts”. The US expects the free market to handle it instead, which it has. This has led to large portions of the country with few doctors and even fewer affordable ones.
I suggest that perhaps it’s a difference in perspective on rights. In Europe, there is a positive right to healthcare. In the US, there is no such right apart from certain circumstances. We turn our nose up at “handouts”. The US expects the free market to handle it instead, which it has. This has led to large portions of the country with few doctors and even fewer affordable ones.
Research mostly done by underpaid researchers from China, India and Europe coming to the US in the hope to get a better life. The whole system is complex.
This has come up before (searching for ref) but the basic explanation is GDP when adjusted for PPP in eurozone is more or less same as USA over that period (ie both economies grew at much same rate).
Basically things in America got more expensive (gas, health, education being big contributors). There is lots of wriggle room in the numbers but the vast gulf by nominal GDP is surprising and so unlikely .
Basically things in America got more expensive (gas, health, education being big contributors). There is lots of wriggle room in the numbers but the vast gulf by nominal GDP is surprising and so unlikely .
What's the biggest impact on life expectancy in the first world that shows up at this level? Healthcare, walking culture, food options, other?
It's probably a very complex thing and both sides of the discussion can pick something to attribute for. For example, you can say that it's because of the opioid crisis in the USA and pretend that it's happening in isolation - just some bad actors doing bad things that don't have anything to do with anything else.
Hong Kong has one of the highest life expectancy of the world and a major contributing factor is high population density. Paramedics are able (and must) arrive within 12 minutes of an emergency call, which is probably the most important time to keep people alive. Doesn't mean Hong Kong is a decent place to live though.
Have you got a source for that?
But your point is valid, life expectancy is not the same as quality of life.
I'd personally rather live five years less and be in great general health than be slogging through pain and medical bingo for my last 10 years.
But your point is valid, life expectancy is not the same as quality of life.
I'd personally rather live five years less and be in great general health than be slogging through pain and medical bingo for my last 10 years.
Sources of high life expectancy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expe...
Source of 12 minute arrival policy of ambulance:
https://www.hkfsd.gov.hk/eng/aboutus/performance.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expe...
Source of 12 minute arrival policy of ambulance:
https://www.hkfsd.gov.hk/eng/aboutus/performance.html
Where is the source that says one is caused by the other
My opinion. Basic logical deduction anyway. Are we not allowed to express personal thoughts without quoting someone now?
surely there are no confounders here
Well… it’s not maximizing the length of life?
I would not cite this as a success story. Europe does not seem to be heading in a good direction imo. The consequences are largely unrealized. Even pretending the war never happened and they continued slurping Russian gas.
I would not cite this as a success story. Europe does not seem to be heading in a good direction imo. The consequences are largely unrealized. Even pretending the war never happened and they continued slurping Russian gas.
Please be informed before commenting. Europe has undergone the hardest and most painful decoupling from Russian gas for quite a while. As of 2022 no gas in Europe is imported from Russia.
I'm with you in argument. Nonetheless, Europe still imports 9% of its gas from Russia: https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/erdgas-versorgung-europas-...
It's essentially killed the German economy. It's all by design. The Americans don't want Germany and Russia teaming up to be a Regional Hegemon of Eurasia.
Also now America can supply Germany with Gas.
Is all by design. American Hegemony.
Also now America can supply Germany with Gas.
Is all by design. American Hegemony.
It has not. Germany is in technical recession, but people are not dying in the streets, have jobs, and can take care of their families.
In the US the economy is stellar, yet homelessness is peaking, with people unable to afford housing even if they have a job.
Stop calling it “the economy” as if it was a direct translation of the reality of a society. It’s not.
Signed: a business journalist.
The parent there is spouting utter nonsense.
But I think your analysis is poor. The homeless rate is higher in Germany than the US for example. Germany isn’t on fire, but I think it’s awkward to color it in a way that implies people are doing better there than the US. It will be a painful economic transition.
But I think your analysis is poor. The homeless rate is higher in Germany than the US for example. Germany isn’t on fire, but I think it’s awkward to color it in a way that implies people are doing better there than the US. It will be a painful economic transition.
"JB: Since the Second World War, it has always been U.S. policy to prevent Germany and Russia or the USSR from working more closely together."
JB = Jacques Baud, who worked for NATO.
https://mronline.org/2022/03/31/the-policy-of-the-usa-has-al...
JB = Jacques Baud, who worked for NATO.
https://mronline.org/2022/03/31/the-policy-of-the-usa-has-al...
Then why were successive American President so adamantly opposed to Russia selling gas to Germany?
Why would they care?
Yes, that is my point. That hurts a lot and is enough to derail Europe pretty severely.
But even had that not happened Europe wasn’t trending very well.
But even had that not happened Europe wasn’t trending very well.
“Europe is considered economical failure”
Hahahaha that’s funny. Europe has one of the richest and strongest economies in the world. Thousands of European companies are world leading in high tech areas, exporting high tech to U.S. and other companies around the world.
The worlds most advanced microchips can’t be built without machines made in Europe. European Airbus came from nowhere overtaking Boeing in a short number of years. The European invented ARM is now the leading CPU instruction set used worldwide etc. etc. etc. There are many more examples.
And focusing just on software: C++, C#, Linux etc. were invented by Europeans.
You might as well argue that the US economy is a failure because European and Japanese companies overtook US car manufacturers or that the US is a failure because Americans needs to take illegal drugs to handle the misery of living in the US. All equally silly arguments.
Hahahaha that’s funny. Europe has one of the richest and strongest economies in the world. Thousands of European companies are world leading in high tech areas, exporting high tech to U.S. and other companies around the world.
The worlds most advanced microchips can’t be built without machines made in Europe. European Airbus came from nowhere overtaking Boeing in a short number of years. The European invented ARM is now the leading CPU instruction set used worldwide etc. etc. etc. There are many more examples.
And focusing just on software: C++, C#, Linux etc. were invented by Europeans.
You might as well argue that the US economy is a failure because European and Japanese companies overtook US car manufacturers or that the US is a failure because Americans needs to take illegal drugs to handle the misery of living in the US. All equally silly arguments.
The digital economy is agricultural revolution 2.0 (probably more like 20.0).
Claim a small corner of (digital) land so you can grow some revenue. Now you can produce content. But now you need to sustain your content production infrastructure for the benefits of revenue. We've now justified our initial claim. Then claim more land, tilling over organic content for an optimized, manufactured experience! Now that you have more land, you can grow more revenue! Now that you have revenue, expand your business! Oops, now your business needs more revenue or else it will starve. Claim more land! Rinse and repeat.
Claim a small corner of (digital) land so you can grow some revenue. Now you can produce content. But now you need to sustain your content production infrastructure for the benefits of revenue. We've now justified our initial claim. Then claim more land, tilling over organic content for an optimized, manufactured experience! Now that you have more land, you can grow more revenue! Now that you have revenue, expand your business! Oops, now your business needs more revenue or else it will starve. Claim more land! Rinse and repeat.
Thanks for saying this. This is absolutely the case. We forget venture capitalism is absolutely first and foremost a framework built on an ideological system.
Founders NEED to be convinced they’ll change the world with their juice press or the game won’t work.
The growth myth is part of this as well.
> You don't need to be a billion dollar company to be important or do great work.
And importantly: because you are a billion dollar company doesn't mean you bring good to the world. At all.
And importantly: because you are a billion dollar company doesn't mean you bring good to the world. At all.
I'd even argue that the burden of proof is reversed. There might be billion dollar companies which bring good, but I'll be skeptical of that fact at first.
I would argue that there is plenty of large(above billion dollars) companies that bring net good to world. Manufacturing is good field. Producing things like machinery improves quality of live and productivity.
Not that these often doesn't have negative aspects when they strive for even higher value extraction, looking at something like John Deere. Still it does allow massive efficiency gains in farming.
Not that these often doesn't have negative aspects when they strive for even higher value extraction, looking at something like John Deere. Still it does allow massive efficiency gains in farming.
I wonder if there's a general rule that the larger an organisation the more pronounced the diffusion of responsibility and the higher the likelihood of shady behaviour? It would be interesting to see some studies into this either way.
I would imagine this gets progressively harder the bigger you get.
I think the simplest way to measure that is by asking 'what would we truly lose if this company disappeared tomorrow?'. With one follow-up question of 'how easily could the important bits actually be replaced?'
No; that kind of thought experiment heavily biases in favor of large organizations.
It's much more helpful to ask, "What would we lose if this company were broken up tomorrow into parts no larger than (say) the median company size?"
It's much more helpful to ask, "What would we lose if this company were broken up tomorrow into parts no larger than (say) the median company size?"
I think it does the opposite, it makes you think about whether the company is big because of its products/services or other reasons. It's not a yes/no answer, it's a prompt.
> 'what would we truly lose if this company disappeared tomorrow?'
I guess such a big company is here because they managed to create a need. The question may be: "were we really worse off before we had what this company built?".
Example: if GitHub disappears tomorrow, that's likely a pretty big problem. But we were fine before GitHub, we just had different (not worse) workflows. GitHub created a dependency.
I guess such a big company is here because they managed to create a need. The question may be: "were we really worse off before we had what this company built?".
Example: if GitHub disappears tomorrow, that's likely a pretty big problem. But we were fine before GitHub, we just had different (not worse) workflows. GitHub created a dependency.
The problem is ambitious management on all levels. When you're running a billion dollar business, you can extract far better compensation (base, bonus, stock options) than if you're running a hundred million dollar business.
The obvious solution is a compensation cap, not just because CEO comp has exploded while lower rung compensation has virtually stagnated, but also because it might put an end to the constant drive of companies to just gobble up competitors.
[1] https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-pay-in-2020/
The obvious solution is a compensation cap, not just because CEO comp has exploded while lower rung compensation has virtually stagnated, but also because it might put an end to the constant drive of companies to just gobble up competitors.
[1] https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-pay-in-2020/
Once you take VC money, you don’t really have a choice but to grow large. That’s their entire business model.
I can’t find it now. But Spolsky himself wrote about how Fogs Creek Software could be what we now call a “lifestyle company” that could grow slowly. But he felt he needed outside investment so Stack Exchange could grow fast since it was only useful if it had network effects.
I can’t find it now. But Spolsky himself wrote about how Fogs Creek Software could be what we now call a “lifestyle company” that could grow slowly. But he felt he needed outside investment so Stack Exchange could grow fast since it was only useful if it had network effects.
"People" understand this just fine the problem is that the economy is structurally geared towards creating unicorn monstrosities that extract value rather than SMEs that create value.
If there were legal and regulatory pressure that crushed and broke down these behemoths (e.g. a FTC and judges that believed that predatory pricing was real and prosecuted accordingly) the VC model would break and this stuff would stop happening.
If there were legal and regulatory pressure that crushed and broke down these behemoths (e.g. a FTC and judges that believed that predatory pricing was real and prosecuted accordingly) the VC model would break and this stuff would stop happening.
I’ll preach it again: people need to learn that satisficing is a good and valuable end-state!
It is a startup wisdom that stagnation (i.e. no growth) means death.
The often stated reason why C-level executives are paid so well is that they have to be able to solve the insanely hard problem of finding new growth opportunities for the company over a long(er) period of time; something few people are capable of.
Well: by this criterion, many CxOs fail to deserve this huge pay (more precisely: they build Potemkin villages to pretend growth where in reality they burn the company's substance).
The often stated reason why C-level executives are paid so well is that they have to be able to solve the insanely hard problem of finding new growth opportunities for the company over a long(er) period of time; something few people are capable of.
Well: by this criterion, many CxOs fail to deserve this huge pay (more precisely: they build Potemkin villages to pretend growth where in reality they burn the company's substance).
They should bring me to Startup Bootcamp or whatever it is, so I can preach the satisficing gospel.
> > Not everything needs to be a damn unicorn.
> More people needs to understand this.
I sounds more like neither one of you has had that choice. Most people, given the chance, would rather add a zero to their savings rather than “doing the right thing for society”
> More people needs to understand this.
I sounds more like neither one of you has had that choice. Most people, given the chance, would rather add a zero to their savings rather than “doing the right thing for society”
Then we should not depend on people making the right choice. We should limit the opportunities people have to choose between "more for me" and "do something useful for society".
One idea here is more progressive taxation.
One idea here is more progressive taxation.
> Then we should not depend on people making the right choice.
Broadly speaking, any system that depends on an unbroken chain of good people who do the right things out of the goodness of their hearts is bound to fail much sooner rather than later. So I agree.
The system should be designed so that people taking action out of their own interests nevertheless advances society as a whole. As Adam Smith put it: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." The system that was designed this way is capitalism, warts and all.
> One idea here is more progressive taxation.
I'm not sure how that conclusion follows from your premise. If you want to set up incentive structures such that people chasing their own interests also ends up being useful for society, then you want to make sure that people voluntarily pay money for goods and services that they value. The supplier of that value makes money, the consumer of that value is better off, and society as a whole is enriched as a result.
This also means that the state takes action to break trusts and monopolies, and (more difficultly) guards against regulatory capture, all of which end up making it so that people involuntarily pay for goods and services that they don't necessarily value. Rent-seeking behavior such as this is one of the highest economic ills.
"More progressive taxation" does many things, but it is also exceptionally good at enriching the politically well-connected, often in the form of rent-seeking behavior I described above. Look at world government spending as a fraction of GDP[0] as a good proxy for "more progressive taxation", and tell me between France (58.5%), the US (38.5%) and Singapore (15.4%), which you consider a well-run country where people do more useful things for society.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_governmen...
Broadly speaking, any system that depends on an unbroken chain of good people who do the right things out of the goodness of their hearts is bound to fail much sooner rather than later. So I agree.
The system should be designed so that people taking action out of their own interests nevertheless advances society as a whole. As Adam Smith put it: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." The system that was designed this way is capitalism, warts and all.
> One idea here is more progressive taxation.
I'm not sure how that conclusion follows from your premise. If you want to set up incentive structures such that people chasing their own interests also ends up being useful for society, then you want to make sure that people voluntarily pay money for goods and services that they value. The supplier of that value makes money, the consumer of that value is better off, and society as a whole is enriched as a result.
This also means that the state takes action to break trusts and monopolies, and (more difficultly) guards against regulatory capture, all of which end up making it so that people involuntarily pay for goods and services that they don't necessarily value. Rent-seeking behavior such as this is one of the highest economic ills.
"More progressive taxation" does many things, but it is also exceptionally good at enriching the politically well-connected, often in the form of rent-seeking behavior I described above. Look at world government spending as a fraction of GDP[0] as a good proxy for "more progressive taxation", and tell me between France (58.5%), the US (38.5%) and Singapore (15.4%), which you consider a well-run country where people do more useful things for society.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_governmen...
I don't think that's true, and I think you're revealing something about yourself vs. the majority of people (besides the fact that most folks, especially in the US, don't have enough money for an extra 0 to mean much). I think of the teachers, social workers, public defenders, volunteers, and civil servants who sacrifice greater earning potential because they believe in what they're doing.
It's like folks who claim people are motivated only by money: no, you're only motivated by money. Most folks see money as a means to an end, namely, a safe, normal life lived with loved ones.
It's like folks who claim people are motivated only by money: no, you're only motivated by money. Most folks see money as a means to an end, namely, a safe, normal life lived with loved ones.
You shouldn’t take VC money if you’re not going to try and be a unicorn.
VC’s aren’t interested in your “smallish business that turns a profit” and neither are the LPs that invest in the fund.
VC’s aren’t interested in your “smallish business that turns a profit” and neither are the LPs that invest in the fund.
God, I wish more companies realized this. Doing one thing, and doing it well, is admirable.
But how can I build a company to send rich people to space for dick measuring contests with only $1m a year in salary?!
On the contrary, it's difficult to sustain the lifestyle of a unicorn founder unless you have a unicorn valuation. In less sarcastic terms, the ecosystem (VCs, founders etc) often is drawn to or selected for those who whish to get rich and get out.
A hundred and fifty years ago people risked incredible suffering in order to strike gold. All when slow and steady profit could be made by owning a farm.
A hundred and fifty years ago people risked incredible suffering in order to strike gold. All when slow and steady profit could be made by owning a farm.
You can't talk people into not being greedy. Definietely not while living in an economic system that is built on it.
But each CEO of those businesses would like to be the next billionaire. Furthermore if the business doesn't turn out to be as good as they hope they can leave and try to get lucky at another company. They care about the company only up to a (small?) point.
More people do understand this, but aren't in a situation to follow it.
Many tech companies are only plausible with VC funding. In order to get VC funding, you generally have to have a path towards being a unicorn.
Many tech companies are only plausible with VC funding. In order to get VC funding, you generally have to have a path towards being a unicorn.
> Despite growing revenue, it lost $84 million over the year ending on March 31, 2023
Its not possible to run a business that loses $84 million. You will run out of money.
Its not possible to run a business that loses $84 million. You will run out of money.
> It's fine being a small(ish) business that turns a profit and provides a service that's beneficial to society.
It's fine, but it's no unicorn. And having such a business might be the closest and only chance the people involved have at real wealth and impact - they are 90% there, and only need a little scale, or so they think.
If you were in their shoes, you would do the same.
It's fine, but it's no unicorn. And having such a business might be the closest and only chance the people involved have at real wealth and impact - they are 90% there, and only need a little scale, or so they think.
If you were in their shoes, you would do the same.
[deleted]
While I mostly agree with your point, I want to point out that on a financial level Wikipedia is really not that well handled. They keep increasing expenses into project that are not core to the experience, or that will never see the light of day (like when they had two different teams working on two different new text editor for the site).
I have a belief that they're caught in a very bureaucratic "we need to use your budget otherwise it would be put into question", but it also means when I give 1 euro to them it goes less and less to their core mission I want to sustain.
I have a belief that they're caught in a very bureaucratic "we need to use your budget otherwise it would be put into question", but it also means when I give 1 euro to them it goes less and less to their core mission I want to sustain.
You're giving them money, for your own reasons, when it's well established that they don't need your donations for their core mission. They spend it on things other than their core mission. Isn't this just a problem which you have created yourself?
Just stop giving them money, give it to some other project which is also doing something valuable but which needs it more. If it ever turns out the Wikipedia needs your money urgently to keep the servers running, start giving to them again.
Just stop giving them money, give it to some other project which is also doing something valuable but which needs it more. If it ever turns out the Wikipedia needs your money urgently to keep the servers running, start giving to them again.
> If it ever turns out the Wikipedia needs your money urgently to keep the servers running, start giving to them again.
If they run out of money to run the servers, I'd consider that a good thing.
Someone can start a new "wiki-2" project, starting out with a wikipedia dump as a base, and continuing to be a free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, but without the $150 million dollars of expenses - I think you could host wikipedia with 2 members of staff and 5 servers, plus cloudflare for the 99% of read-only requests - similar to how they ran it at the start of the project.
If they run out of money to run the servers, I'd consider that a good thing.
Someone can start a new "wiki-2" project, starting out with a wikipedia dump as a base, and continuing to be a free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, but without the $150 million dollars of expenses - I think you could host wikipedia with 2 members of staff and 5 servers, plus cloudflare for the 99% of read-only requests - similar to how they ran it at the start of the project.
Wikipedia is not particularly well run. Just look at their infrastructure expenses. On the other hand, they bring in tons of money from companies and user donations.
Maybe its time for a leaner alternative?
Maybe its time for a leaner alternative?
Even knowing those issues and hating it, after all the news last year I'm starting to appreciate the fact that Wikimedia at least still isn't changing its core function at all. Any new things they try is independent to Wikipedia and funding for Wikipedia itself still isn't cannibalized ao far for those other projects.
I can't say the same for other enshittified companies.
I can't say the same for other enshittified companies.
> their median user is a junior dev who really just needs to serialize a Java object and isn’t going to pay or put up with any LLM-generated nonsense.
(Un?)Ironically, one of my main uses of ChatGPT is to replace StackOverflow (it's great at turning vague guesses about what I want into fast ideas, and when it's wrong it's still less wrong than the combination of SO content and the search engines connected to it); and also for turning undocumented and badly documented examples of JSON into a collection of (swift) `Codable` structs.
(Un?)Ironically, one of my main uses of ChatGPT is to replace StackOverflow (it's great at turning vague guesses about what I want into fast ideas, and when it's wrong it's still less wrong than the combination of SO content and the search engines connected to it); and also for turning undocumented and badly documented examples of JSON into a collection of (swift) `Codable` structs.
> one of my main uses of ChatGPT is to replace StackOverflow
I'm pretty sure it's the main usage of almost all the programmers who use ChatGPT.
I'm pretty sure it's the main usage of almost all the programmers who use ChatGPT.
That and translating short messages into neurotypical-appropriate management-impressing emails, lol. Example, the message "tl;dr":
Dear [Recipient's Name],
I trust this email finds you well. I am writing to express my appreciation for the time and effort you invested in composing the recent email you sent my way. Your commitment to clear communication is commendable, and I value the insights you often bring to our exchanges.
However, I must admit that due to the current demands on my schedule, I have not had the opportunity to read through the entire content of your email in its entirety. Recognizing the importance of your message, I feel it necessary to be transparent about my current time constraints and commitments.
With a view to ensuring that I can fully grasp the essential points you wish to convey, I would be grateful if you could kindly provide a condensed version or a summary of the key takeaways from your original message. Rest assured that your efforts in doing so will be highly appreciated and will enable me to offer the attention and consideration your thoughts deserve.
Please understand that my intention is not to diminish the significance of your communication but rather to ensure that I can respond meaningfully and efficiently to your input. I truly value our professional collaboration and the valuable contributions you consistently make to our discussions.
Thank you for your understanding, and I look forward to receiving your condensed version of the email at your earliest convenience. Should you have any questions or require further clarification on this matter, please do not hesitate to reach out.
With warm regards,
[Your Name] [Your Title/Position] [Company Name] [Contact Information]
Dear [Recipient's Name],
I trust this email finds you well. I am writing to express my appreciation for the time and effort you invested in composing the recent email you sent my way. Your commitment to clear communication is commendable, and I value the insights you often bring to our exchanges.
However, I must admit that due to the current demands on my schedule, I have not had the opportunity to read through the entire content of your email in its entirety. Recognizing the importance of your message, I feel it necessary to be transparent about my current time constraints and commitments.
With a view to ensuring that I can fully grasp the essential points you wish to convey, I would be grateful if you could kindly provide a condensed version or a summary of the key takeaways from your original message. Rest assured that your efforts in doing so will be highly appreciated and will enable me to offer the attention and consideration your thoughts deserve.
Please understand that my intention is not to diminish the significance of your communication but rather to ensure that I can respond meaningfully and efficiently to your input. I truly value our professional collaboration and the valuable contributions you consistently make to our discussions.
Thank you for your understanding, and I look forward to receiving your condensed version of the email at your earliest convenience. Should you have any questions or require further clarification on this matter, please do not hesitate to reach out.
With warm regards,
[Your Name] [Your Title/Position] [Company Name] [Contact Information]
I would be extremely confused if I received this email.
First, the request is bizarre. “I don’t have time to read the email you sent me, so rewrite it and resend it” is an extremely strange thing.
Second, this email has about 10x the words it actually needs. This isn’t being polite.
First, the request is bizarre. “I don’t have time to read the email you sent me, so rewrite it and resend it” is an extremely strange thing.
Second, this email has about 10x the words it actually needs. This isn’t being polite.
It's humour, run with it :)
Ok, that's hilarious :) so many words that say absolutely nothing.
Yeah for me ChatGPT is my go-to for "I know what I want to do but I don't know the exact syntax, get me an answer quickly without having to wade through endless SEO spam sites and SO questions without an answer" kind of situations.
Honestly LLM generated and moderator edited/vetted answers would make SO vastly more useful
Looks like the CEO agrees with you, which is a nice thing to be able to say given all the cynicism everyone seems to have of late: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36892057
Agreed, stack overflow is the place where we stop to find an answer to a question. They should stay focused on that instead of adding useless features.
But I don't entirely agree on LLMs being useless. An LLM could help with avoiding duplicate questions. It could analyze the content of the question and point out stuff like missing logs before the question is submitted to guide beginners through the basics.
If someone manages to turn an LLM into a good context-aware search engine, that would also make sense for SO.
But somehow no one seems to actually use LLMs given how much bullshit they talk about them.
But I don't entirely agree on LLMs being useless. An LLM could help with avoiding duplicate questions. It could analyze the content of the question and point out stuff like missing logs before the question is submitted to guide beginners through the basics.
If someone manages to turn an LLM into a good context-aware search engine, that would also make sense for SO.
But somehow no one seems to actually use LLMs given how much bullshit they talk about them.
I just hope they understand the core value proposition of SO is that answers come from people. That is their product.
If you want answers from a computer, you can get them from chat GPT. The best SO is going to do with that is spend a lot of money to repackage it into a feature people probably weren’t looking for on SO to begin with.
I agree there are other indirect applications of ML models than just generating answers. And I hope ML can help to soften some of the “edges” in UX. A lot of that can be done with BERT or even more primitive statistical methods though.
If you want answers from a computer, you can get them from chat GPT. The best SO is going to do with that is spend a lot of money to repackage it into a feature people probably weren’t looking for on SO to begin with.
I agree there are other indirect applications of ML models than just generating answers. And I hope ML can help to soften some of the “edges” in UX. A lot of that can be done with BERT or even more primitive statistical methods though.
It's doubtful that ChatGPT would be able to answer so many tech questions, if it wasn't for the existence of SO.
I don't remember which podcast was it coming from, several years ago there was motion to shut down the US National Weather Service, or is it the NOAA I don't remember, because AccuWeather is all people need. No one seems to question where AccuWeather get the meteorological data. It is from the government service
Found it. Turns out it is an audio book by Michael Lewis, The Coming Storm
https://www.audible.com/pd/The-Coming-Storm-Audiobook/B07F43...
I use a search engine called phind. For simple problems, usually I just have to pass in a short description of what I am doing and the error message, and it would find the relevant SO posts and summarize several potential solutions. Half the time one of the solution would work and I dont even have to open the SO posts.
Try phind.com, it's pretty much what you described. It's an AI search engine for programmers which is able to annotate its results with SO links for every paragraph it generates in case you don't trust the generated text.
Thanks, I'm currently trying to guide two students through the hell of setting up ML on CUDA without doing everything from scratch and they use chatGPT a lot.
This will probably come in handy for all the weird cryptic errors that they get along the way.
This will probably come in handy for all the weird cryptic errors that they get along the way.
Done and bookmarked. I forget how cool these things are. Now I just want it read to me in Trump’s voice with a very indignant tone and some cuss words mixed in like the presidents discuss anime videos.
Yeah, I'm surprised that a company whose core product could be run by three people for less than a million USD per year with room to spare for lavish company cars, somehow manages to lose $84 million USD.
This is a “Dropbox is just a pretty rsync”-level comment
Atwood and Spolsky themselves boasted repeatedly that SO, for a long time, was just a Windows server and a SQL Server with some C#.
The key element in the success of SO was not technical: it was Spolsky and Atwood leveraging already-established (Microsoft) audiences they had, to create a virtuous circle of sharing that snowballed for years.
The key element in the success of SO was not technical: it was Spolsky and Atwood leveraging already-established (Microsoft) audiences they had, to create a virtuous circle of sharing that snowballed for years.
Plenty of sites of similar scale were run on less or are to this day. SO also is technologically as basic as it gets. They don't even serve big files.
I think OP may be referencing SO has multiple products outside the core QA site that may be more headcount-intensive or at least have more costs outside a few .NET servers and a well tuned database.
Not to mention an international presence benefiting from 24-hour on-call rotations that would benefit from international offices and other fixtures that are very expensive to maintain.
Not to mention an international presence benefiting from 24-hour on-call rotations that would benefit from international offices and other fixtures that are very expensive to maintain.
Some can't stand the fact that they have a perfect product.
Musk can buy it and run it like that. Maybe drop the O and make it SX?
> Another thing. This “comments aren’t for extended discussion” nonsense needs to go too. Any question could easily include a Reddit-style discussion tab to facilitate discussion. I’m sure much of it would be at least as valuable as the answers themselves.
Please god no. Why this tendency to grow something you like until it includes everything?
There are other places to discuss including the actual Reddit. SO is about question-answers, that's why it got popular. You try to turn it into Reddit, you will add Reddit-scale moderation overhead across 100000 simultaneously running threads to already existing moderation overhead for actual answers. If you didn't notice Reddit can't even manage their own overhead so they freeze discussions after a while.
This is the opposite of what SO should do, which is focus on discovering and improving existing information instead of adding more and more ways to contribute low-effort junk
Please god no. Why this tendency to grow something you like until it includes everything?
There are other places to discuss including the actual Reddit. SO is about question-answers, that's why it got popular. You try to turn it into Reddit, you will add Reddit-scale moderation overhead across 100000 simultaneously running threads to already existing moderation overhead for actual answers. If you didn't notice Reddit can't even manage their own overhead so they freeze discussions after a while.
This is the opposite of what SO should do, which is focus on discovering and improving existing information instead of adding more and more ways to contribute low-effort junk
Anyone can edit any answer (unless it is specifically locked which is uncommon)
For new users the edit does have to get approved by 3 other users to give some check on vandalisim.
Thus answers are wikis.
For new users the edit does have to get approved by 3 other users to give some check on vandalisim.
Thus answers are wikis.
> Any question could easily include a Reddit-style discussion tab to facilitate discussion.
This exists in the form of chat, and extended comment discussions migrate there. That being said, any question that requires extensive discussion is likely not a very good fit for SO because it's probably ambiguous, unclear or otherwise hard to answer exactly.
This exists in the form of chat, and extended comment discussions migrate there. That being said, any question that requires extensive discussion is likely not a very good fit for SO because it's probably ambiguous, unclear or otherwise hard to answer exactly.
Chat is instant. Blink and you will miss it. It isn't suited at all for thread discussion where they might be months between additional answers and comments.
Or move it to zulip or zulip like so it's at least threaded in a way that works over months. But as is it's just two different purpose tool and cramming one's use case in the other just doesn't fit.
Or move it to zulip or zulip like so it's at least threaded in a way that works over months. But as is it's just two different purpose tool and cramming one's use case in the other just doesn't fit.
But SO is not meant for discussions.
It is to provide answers (preferably one) to a question.
It is to provide answers (preferably one) to a question.
Their "migrated to chat" feels alot like "wished away to the cornfield".
For one, it's almost never a chat. You go there, and the other person who might be talking last posted 12 hours ago. That's not an immediate conversation. These are still "comments". It's a clumsy interface. Then, despite no longer having to be a "comment on a question" like in the main interface, it's still this crappy pseudo-IRC that doesn't give you full markdown to work with.
> That being said, any question that requires extensive discussion is likely not a very good fit for SO
Such they claim.
For one, it's almost never a chat. You go there, and the other person who might be talking last posted 12 hours ago. That's not an immediate conversation. These are still "comments". It's a clumsy interface. Then, despite no longer having to be a "comment on a question" like in the main interface, it's still this crappy pseudo-IRC that doesn't give you full markdown to work with.
> That being said, any question that requires extensive discussion is likely not a very good fit for SO
Such they claim.
> That being said, any question that requires extensive discussion is likely not a very good fit for SO because it's probably ambiguous, unclear or otherwise hard to answer exactly.
So basically SO isn't a tool to improve your skills but one to turn you into a copy/paste monkey?
So basically SO isn't a tool to improve your skills but one to turn you into a copy/paste monkey?
I mean, if you can copy/paste my answer here into your codebase, I would be very surprised.
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/52206576/write-spark-dat...
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/52206576/write-spark-dat...
I'm surprised you didn't get a mod complaining there's nothing to copy/paste in there :)
Stated a little more politely, that was its original purpose, yes.
20K+ karma in SO.
I have never used SO chat.
I don't come to SO to socialize.
To me chat means socializing.
I'm in a similar point... though tbh, most of my points are just entropy from being fairly active early on. I don't use SO chat either... if I want/need something closer to chat, I'm more inclined to join various dev channels in IRC/Libra.
Those are really the only questions which need SO though. If it would be clear how to ask or answer the person wouldn't need SO.
This exact type of discussion comes up on GitHub issues, and quite often some combination of replies hides a true solution.
I'm always surprised Discourse was never integrated into SO.
> Thank god Wikipedia isn’t run like Stack Overflow.
Wikipedia isn't run like a business, but relies on charity. Wikipedia doesn't have to be profitable to exist so of course it isn't run like Stack Overflow, Wikipedia is backed by a foundation that gets plenty of donations. Maybe SO should adopt that model, but that's an entire different question.
If Wikipedia had to be profitable it would be a very different platform.
Both are crowdsourced (so are reddit, facebook and youtube), and the similarities stop there.
Wikipedia isn't run like a business, but relies on charity. Wikipedia doesn't have to be profitable to exist so of course it isn't run like Stack Overflow, Wikipedia is backed by a foundation that gets plenty of donations. Maybe SO should adopt that model, but that's an entire different question.
If Wikipedia had to be profitable it would be a very different platform.
Both are crowdsourced (so are reddit, facebook and youtube), and the similarities stop there.
> needs to serialize a Java object and isn’t going to pay or put up with any LLM-generated nonsense.
I use GPT to implement classes with many interfaces. Even though I often have to make corrections, it's still way faster than looking up the documentation for each of these interfaces. Saves a lot of time in these cases, all the more so I don't have to ponder on which interface in the class hierarchy tree I need to implement.
I use GPT to implement classes with many interfaces. Even though I often have to make corrections, it's still way faster than looking up the documentation for each of these interfaces. Saves a lot of time in these cases, all the more so I don't have to ponder on which interface in the class hierarchy tree I need to implement.
> SO doesn’t need large language models.
It could use it to improve its search. However, it should be trained on SO, because the language is quite specialized.
It could use it to improve its search. However, it should be trained on SO, because the language is quite specialized.
> meanwhile it seems SO is constantly being driven off a cliff by bimbos in management
A bimbo is a woman who makes up for a lack of intelligence or competence by having sex appeal.
Don't take my word for it: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bimbo
Did you mean to use a different word?
A bimbo is a woman who makes up for a lack of intelligence or competence by having sex appeal.
Don't take my word for it: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bimbo
Did you mean to use a different word?
It's 2023! There's no reason we can't assume gender-neutrality of previously-gendered terms. Maybe the parent commenter finds Prashanth Chandrasekar absolutely smoking hot (despite his seeming incompetence).
If you assume gender neutrality, you're still left with the near-explicit implication that management at Stack Overflow is chosen for their sexuality. It's not at all rare to accuse management (wherever) of being chosen for something other than competence, but usually you'd be saying they are where they are for political reasons, not because they slept with someone.
This claim is unusual enough that I wanted to know if it's what my parent commenter meant.
This claim is unusual enough that I wanted to know if it's what my parent commenter meant.
They probably could use the LLM to do a lot of things:
Imagine sanity checking old answers for new versions of language or Library. Adding probabilistic merit to new user answers. Asking the question asker to review machine generated answers in troubleshooting questions with little traction.
Obviously, enshittiffication is at work in how these social0-esque sites try to use tech.
Imagine sanity checking old answers for new versions of language or Library. Adding probabilistic merit to new user answers. Asking the question asker to review machine generated answers in troubleshooting questions with little traction.
Obviously, enshittiffication is at work in how these social0-esque sites try to use tech.
> Thank god Wikimedia isn’t run like Stack Overflow.
I wonder why didn't Wikimedia have a stackoverflow-like site before stackoverflow.
I wonder why didn't Wikimedia have a stackoverflow-like site before stackoverflow.
There's a lot of nuance to how SO and other sites they run work. Turning programmer focused FAQs into a collaborative site was the route it kind of had to take.
Reading through the joelonsoftware blog was kind of eyeopening, since I didn't know he was one of its creators.
Reading through the joelonsoftware blog was kind of eyeopening, since I didn't know he was one of its creators.
> I didn't know he was one of its creators
This comment just made me feel old :-)
This comment just made me feel old :-)
Yet, now that stackoverflow is becoming increasingly hostile to their contributors, I think it would be a good moment to the Wikimedia folks to venture in this area.
I take it you haven't had to deal with many mods on Wikipedia.
Depends on who's fiefdom you encroach upon (and language version). I think SO "culture" is more equalized, even among multiple tags.
In a rosy red version of stack overflow yes, in reality it is a place for javascript developers to copy paste answers from. There core value proposition is being destroyed by GPT generating more contextualized copy paste snippets for them.
The ChatGPT answer for "how do I serialize a Java object" is spot on, better than the one I found on SO in a comparable amount of time. I encourage you to try it.
Really hope SO internalizes these suggestions
> SO is constantly being driven off a cliff by bimbos in management.
Mods are the worst. Community moderators are ruining SO faster than the CEO.
Mods are the worst. Community moderators are ruining SO faster than the CEO.
Yeah, the CEO nailed the problem 5 years ago and tried to fix it. The community was having absolutely none of it - meta overflow more or less had a collective “are we so wrong? no, it’s the questionmakers who are wrong…” and then went right back to it.
https://stackoverflow.blog/2018/04/26/stack-overflow-isnt-ve...
What do you do with the fact that your core contributors are toxic manchildren who love the ability to push buttons at people for daring to ask a question? Build something new where they’re not the core contributors.
https://stackoverflow.blog/2018/04/26/stack-overflow-isnt-ve...
What do you do with the fact that your core contributors are toxic manchildren who love the ability to push buttons at people for daring to ask a question? Build something new where they’re not the core contributors.
I guess all the people downvoting are moderators on SO who are upset they killed a community.
Now that you write about the median user being a junior with trivial needs, i realize, i barely visit SO anymore. Not sure when that happened. I used to be a power-consumer on SO. I don‘t think i have even visited SO this year at all.
I did use GPT4 for a lot of the minor things that i am too lazy to remember and would have „relearned“ on SO every time… maybe others have a similar experience and management just sees visits dropping? Maybe they just focus on developing a target audience for a tailored product.
I did use GPT4 for a lot of the minor things that i am too lazy to remember and would have „relearned“ on SO every time… maybe others have a similar experience and management just sees visits dropping? Maybe they just focus on developing a target audience for a tailored product.
> Now that you write about the median user being a junior with trivial needs, i realize, i barely visit SO anymore. Not sure when that happened. I used to be a power-consumer on SO. I don‘t think i have even visited SO this year at all.
Google algorithm changes have absolutely curbstomped SO visibility, probably due to third-party sites mirroring their content and making it appear to be a linkfarm to google.
It's funny how even as tech users, google is "the internet" and if something disappears off google, it's gone. Even just pushing a site down a ways in results will massively reduce the amount of traffic, even for us technical users.
There have been a lot of "monkeypatches" from users working around it, like adding "reddit" or site:reddit.com or other hints, but fundamentally google result quality has been significantly declining for 10+ years now and it's getting to the point where it no longer surfaces desirable content anymore.
Google algorithm changes have absolutely curbstomped SO visibility, probably due to third-party sites mirroring their content and making it appear to be a linkfarm to google.
It's funny how even as tech users, google is "the internet" and if something disappears off google, it's gone. Even just pushing a site down a ways in results will massively reduce the amount of traffic, even for us technical users.
There have been a lot of "monkeypatches" from users working around it, like adding "reddit" or site:reddit.com or other hints, but fundamentally google result quality has been significantly declining for 10+ years now and it's getting to the point where it no longer surfaces desirable content anymore.
> It's funny how even as tech users, google is "the internet" and if something disappears off google, it's gone
Good point!
Your response just made me remember why Copilot & later ChatGPT came in so handy. It was a weirdly perfect timing . It was after i have been so annoyed with all these trashy low quality code snippet sites just copying SO content appearing multiple times on the first page for almost any code related query. After months I even made a Ask HN because i wondered, if only I was so incredibly annoyed by these sites popping up.
I just stopped googling for much programming related questions because of this.
OT: A silly thought crossing my mind: I never really understood the value of these sites. In hindsight now, does it seem plausible that microsoft or openAI were behind these or had something to do with these sites?
Good point!
Your response just made me remember why Copilot & later ChatGPT came in so handy. It was a weirdly perfect timing . It was after i have been so annoyed with all these trashy low quality code snippet sites just copying SO content appearing multiple times on the first page for almost any code related query. After months I even made a Ask HN because i wondered, if only I was so incredibly annoyed by these sites popping up.
I just stopped googling for much programming related questions because of this.
OT: A silly thought crossing my mind: I never really understood the value of these sites. In hindsight now, does it seem plausible that microsoft or openAI were behind these or had something to do with these sites?
I have a hard time feeling sorry for Stack Overflow. They had most developers in the world visiting frequently. They have detailed information on exactly which languages, libraries, toolchains, and platforms those developers use and their pain points. All of their content is given to them for free by volunteers. All of their moderation is done for them for free by volunteers. The only thing they have to serve is text. How can you fail to build a sustainable business on top of that‽
Having a lean and mean company doesn't make for happy investors.
The company was finished in 2020 when they raised $85M in a Series E. The fall after that is inevitable. Even the $40M they took in 2015 is a questionable decision for the very reasons you detail. What did they need tens of millions in investments for?
The company was finished in 2020 when they raised $85M in a Series E. The fall after that is inevitable. Even the $40M they took in 2015 is a questionable decision for the very reasons you detail. What did they need tens of millions in investments for?
This happens so, so often; companies raising too much money at too high a valuation, based on unrealistic “moonshot” expectations, which then fails and they’ll have to pivot and refocus and they’ll be a mere shell of their former self.
Raising at too high a valuation is not a position you want to be in. Unless you’re planning to cash in sooner than the ship will start burning.
Raising at too high a valuation is not a position you want to be in. Unless you’re planning to cash in sooner than the ship will start burning.
Silicon Valley HBO https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZgfTarNxdY
And further explanation on revenue https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzAdXyPYKQo
And further explanation on revenue https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzAdXyPYKQo
So they could send a single keycap halfway around the world. I still don’t understand why they insisted to send me one.
https://law.gmnz.xyz/2023/06/08/stackoverflow-keycap-reward....
https://law.gmnz.xyz/2023/06/08/stackoverflow-keycap-reward....
Sending a small item like that as a prize for a contest seems reasonable.
The design of that keycap on the other hand is ridiculous.
The design of that keycap on the other hand is ridiculous.
It does not make any sense, I have no use for it. I work only on a MacBook.
Pretty much nobody would use that on a standalone keyboard either. They had to know the design isn't practical for the stated purpose.
However, it does make a nice little trophy/trinket. It's merit based, so getting one could become a goal for contributors. It's branded. It fits on a desk.
If they made it twice as big and called it a trophy, it'd probably make more sense. But then costs would be higher and it'd be more formal.
However, it does make a nice little trophy/trinket. It's merit based, so getting one could become a goal for contributors. It's branded. It fits on a desk.
If they made it twice as big and called it a trophy, it'd probably make more sense. But then costs would be higher and it'd be more formal.
Look up "artisan keycaps". Not only do people use them, they collect them, and certain specific rare and desirable artisan keycaps can be worth a lot of money. The high quality ones tend to be cast out of resin in small batches (sometimes literally just 1 in a given color/sculpt combination) and sold in short-duration raffles. People tend to put them on less-used keys.
> Series E
A company needing that many rounds deserves to die. Sorry to have known you SO.
A company needing that many rounds deserves to die. Sorry to have known you SO.
I'm a senior dev. The only thing I found useful in the last years was the job market on SO. They closed that down recently. Now I don't even go there at all.
It still boggles my mind that they closed this down. To date, it was the best job board for software engineers, and had filters you just don't see anywhere else - like filtering by companies that sponsor visas.
Finding work there was a dream, and while there weren't many roles available, they were usually great quality roles. Finding candidates was also great, and all of them were solid candidates that met the basic bar of "can you write some basic code in a language of your choosing".
To be honest, it felt like SO went downhill when Jeff Atwood left.
Finding work there was a dream, and while there weren't many roles available, they were usually great quality roles. Finding candidates was also great, and all of them were solid candidates that met the basic bar of "can you write some basic code in a language of your choosing".
To be honest, it felt like SO went downhill when Jeff Atwood left.
I'm a senior dev. Which means my knowledge and experience is often on higher level stuff. Hence I often need to look up details I don't bother to remember. I'm not ashamed to say I search for lots of stuff, and often get results from SO.
If anything, pretending to be completely knowledgeable "since one's a senior" is quite junior behavior.
If anything, pretending to be completely knowledgeable "since one's a senior" is quite junior behavior.
Also: sometimes I need to work with stuff I'm not so familiar with; no one is "senior" across the board. Even though I did Ruby full-time for a few years, it's been a while and I forgot a lot of basic boring stuff so I will end up searching things like "Ruby remove whitespace from string" (trim? strip? chop? chomp? delete? What were the differences again?)
And even inside my main expertise, I will sometimes search for an answer just to verify that my thinking is correct and that I didn't miss anything (which is not a strong guarantee that I didn't, but better than nothing).
And even inside my main expertise, I will sometimes search for an answer just to verify that my thinking is correct and that I didn't miss anything (which is not a strong guarantee that I didn't, but better than nothing).
That's where GPT-4 ate their lunch. I've never really administered servers myself before, but I was able to set up multi-container CI/CD on bare servers and monitoring with ELK, filebeat and metricbeat and public-faced services through nginx with SSL certificates and basic password authentication all in a single day.
Before, I would use stack overflow and it would take me at least a week.
Before, I would use stack overflow and it would take me at least a week.
I work in cloud consulting and I had a project where I needed to create a CI/CD proof of concept for the customer to use that involved deploying a Docker container to ECS (AWS’s Docker orchestrator) and show how they could integrate automated testing with the pipeline.
They use Java - a language I literally haven’t used since maybe a year after it was introduced.
I used ChatGPT to create the source code for the sample based on my specifications including Junit tests, the build with Maven, the Dockerfile - everything.
Of course it got a few things wrong and missed steps and I had to keep pasting in error messages until it got it right. But it was still faster than trolling the internet.
Of course I was very up front with the client that the Java pieces were all generated by ChatGPT.
They use Java - a language I literally haven’t used since maybe a year after it was introduced.
I used ChatGPT to create the source code for the sample based on my specifications including Junit tests, the build with Maven, the Dockerfile - everything.
Of course it got a few things wrong and missed steps and I had to keep pasting in error messages until it got it right. But it was still faster than trolling the internet.
Of course I was very up front with the client that the Java pieces were all generated by ChatGPT.
> But it was still faster than trolling the internet.
I'm guessing you mean trawling the internet rather than trying to upset and annoy the internet:)
I'm guessing you mean trawling the internet rather than trying to upset and annoy the internet:)
No, “trolling” is actually correct. It’s less widely used than the meaning you refer to these days though.
> the act of searching among a large number or many different places in order to find people or information you want
> It takes me 45 minutes of trolling on the internet and I’m still confused.
— https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/trolling
> the act of searching among a large number or many different places in order to find people or information you want
> It takes me 45 minutes of trolling on the internet and I’m still confused.
— https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/trolling
Today I learned: while trawling is probably the word I should have used, I was unintentionally correct either way…
Even though the sibling comment said I was technically not wrong, I think “trawling” is the better term.
And I assume trawling vs trolling is one of those things that you feel the urge to point out just like I hate when someone says “jive” instead of “jibe”.
That last sentence was not meant to be passive aggressive at all. It was just an observation.
And I assume trawling vs trolling is one of those things that you feel the urge to point out just like I hate when someone says “jive” instead of “jibe”.
That last sentence was not meant to be passive aggressive at all. It was just an observation.
> That last sentence was not meant to be passive aggressive at all.
I certainly didn't read it that way. It just stood out because British English is my native language.
I certainly didn't read it that way. It just stood out because British English is my native language.
To each their own. I haven't had the necessity to use it, and when I searched for problems the answers were mostly not applicable. All in all it wasn't worth the effort. I just read the source code of the lib I use instead. This tends to give me more for my time.
I understand that everybody has their own unique situation and my statement wasn't meant to be generalized anyways.
I understand that everybody has their own unique situation and my statement wasn't meant to be generalized anyways.
[deleted]
Stack Overflow job ads were the best part of the site. They were affordable enough for small companies to run them, and they were the only place that actually showed compensation info front and center. They didn't have the most job ads, but they had really good ones.
Screw them for closing that.
Screw them for closing that.
All they had to do was leave it alone. Maybe leave a team to do moderation and keep things running operationally, and done.
Heck, spin it off as a sub company and resell the stack overflow brand and do nothing.
They actively went out of their way to get rid of it. If I didn't know any better I'd say this was backroom dealing where job ad company owners somehow pressured the CEO to stop competing with them because they were just too good.
Heck, spin it off as a sub company and resell the stack overflow brand and do nothing.
They actively went out of their way to get rid of it. If I didn't know any better I'd say this was backroom dealing where job ad company owners somehow pressured the CEO to stop competing with them because they were just too good.
> Now I don't even go there at all.
Sounds like you could do with learning something new!
My 30+ years experience doesn't matter for shit when I say... want to fix an annoyance in an open source tool using an unfamiliar language. I'm back to "how do you deserialise json" level query. Offical docs are typically either useless auto-generated placeholders or over-detailed rabbit warren not to mention there are usually five ways to do anything and I need to know the blessed approach not just any approach. I want a few lines of sample code and some confidence that it's the approapriate method and not 10 years out of date. It's what a QA site should excel at and exceed ChatRoulleteGPT answers given social proof from real people.
Sounds like you could do with learning something new!
My 30+ years experience doesn't matter for shit when I say... want to fix an annoyance in an open source tool using an unfamiliar language. I'm back to "how do you deserialise json" level query. Offical docs are typically either useless auto-generated placeholders or over-detailed rabbit warren not to mention there are usually five ways to do anything and I need to know the blessed approach not just any approach. I want a few lines of sample code and some confidence that it's the approapriate method and not 10 years out of date. It's what a QA site should excel at and exceed ChatRoulleteGPT answers given social proof from real people.
Why.. why did they closed this down? I remember this was my single most successful place to find good software developers / run job ads. We spent thousands and thousands on these ads, and I always felt this was their chicken that laid golden eggs.
Here's the post explaining their decision:
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/415293/sunsetting-j...
The main reason being stated as:
> Exiting this space allows us to refocus on products that build on our core strengths: knowledge reuse and building communities at scale.
A year has passed and I'm not sure what progress have we seen on the "knowledge reuse" and "building communities" front.
The post has this quote from the CEO:
> We are realigning the Talent business to focus more on customer employer branding and company awareness needs, and moving away from job slots and direct hiring. This will tie the product closer to what we offer through Stack Overflow Advertising [...]
The article linked by OP (related to generative AI) has this quoute, on the other hand:
> There's definitely a question around how we leverage [generative AI] technology to deliver on our mission of helping build technology through collective knowledge. This intersection between the power of community on one side and AI on the other side—from my standpoint, human-generated community content has taken us to this level, we have a large impact, but there are also so many problems we can solve by leveraging this technology.
Reading these CEO's quotes filled with words like "realigning" and "leveraging" makes him sound like a typical MBA executive (yes, he's a Harvard MBA) who thinks that the same rules can be applied to a business in any industry. All while completely ignoring the feedback of a business's users/customers.
The main reason being stated as:
> Exiting this space allows us to refocus on products that build on our core strengths: knowledge reuse and building communities at scale.
A year has passed and I'm not sure what progress have we seen on the "knowledge reuse" and "building communities" front.
The post has this quote from the CEO:
> We are realigning the Talent business to focus more on customer employer branding and company awareness needs, and moving away from job slots and direct hiring. This will tie the product closer to what we offer through Stack Overflow Advertising [...]
The article linked by OP (related to generative AI) has this quoute, on the other hand:
> There's definitely a question around how we leverage [generative AI] technology to deliver on our mission of helping build technology through collective knowledge. This intersection between the power of community on one side and AI on the other side—from my standpoint, human-generated community content has taken us to this level, we have a large impact, but there are also so many problems we can solve by leveraging this technology.
Reading these CEO's quotes filled with words like "realigning" and "leveraging" makes him sound like a typical MBA executive (yes, he's a Harvard MBA) who thinks that the same rules can be applied to a business in any industry. All while completely ignoring the feedback of a business's users/customers.
> I always felt this was their chicken that laid golden eggs.
But was it? Did they ever report on whether it brought them any profits? Potentially, its pricing was too low to make a good profit, but increasing it to reach profits or even just break even would have turned too many customers away.
But was it? Did they ever report on whether it brought them any profits? Potentially, its pricing was too low to make a good profit, but increasing it to reach profits or even just break even would have turned too many customers away.
I can’t believe this is gone. They had the highest quality job posts and search every time I’ve looked for jobs.
SO are really poorly managed, they almost deserve the outcome and the predicament they’re in.
Yes, it was one of the few places where we could find job offers that actually made sense.
Was coming here to comment the same. It's not like they're serving high bandwidth content here. What are they spending their money on?
Given they were bought by an investment firm for quite a frothy amount of money I'd assume it was at least partially debt leveraged and they're suffering from interest payments.
The author is wrong. The CEO perfectly understands Stack Overflow. What the author of this blog doesn't understand is that the CEO is pursuing a perfectly valid strategy: maximize its short-term gains by squeezing it unsustainably with the latest hype, and take the money, and run.
The good of the community and the well-being of the users are completely irrelevant in this strategy.
The good of the community and the well-being of the users are completely irrelevant in this strategy.
Why is this so common with tech companies? I'm not an economist by any means, but I never hear of McDonald's, Honda, Home Depot, etc. etc. pulling these kinds of stunts. They're perfectly happy being large companies that pull a constant year-over-year profit. Meanwhile tech companies seem to deliberately have a lifespan of years, not decades, with rugpulls like this being accepted as the norm.
This happens pretty frequently with all kinds of companies. Look at anything touched by private equity, for example.
You won’t read about the boring, sustainable companies in the headlines.
These stories are common in headlines because it’s newsworthy, not because it’s common in general.
These stories are common in headlines because it’s newsworthy, not because it’s common in general.
Because long term companies in tech are seen as "not innovating" or "evil".
Ex : Microsoft (evil), Oracle (not innovating and evil), IBM (not innovating), Apple (evil)
Being a startup is seen as "good" by many people because you're seen as "trying", if you stay long and raise your prices, you're seen as "milking".
Microsoft is creating a lot of innovation by trying and failing (Windows phone) or succeeding (Office 365) but many people here see them as evil because they ask for money.
Ex : Microsoft (evil), Oracle (not innovating and evil), IBM (not innovating), Apple (evil)
Being a startup is seen as "good" by many people because you're seen as "trying", if you stay long and raise your prices, you're seen as "milking".
Microsoft is creating a lot of innovation by trying and failing (Windows phone) or succeeding (Office 365) but many people here see them as evil because they ask for money.
Ehh ... is Wikipedia seen as "not innovating" or "evil"? Craigslist? They haven't really changed their core model (except for Wikipedia's recent more minimal look, I guess, but that's a pretty small change in the last decade). Wikipedia went the direction that once they had more money than they needed to run it, they started to do other stuff. I think that's great. Once your killer app is hugely successful, stop messing with it. Focus on running it efficiently and reliably with a small crew, and take the ongoing income from that to try other things.
Yes, the companies you listed are viewed negatively, but that's not because they have a sustainable business model. Don't underestimate the many perfectly valid reasons those companies earned their reputations.
Yes, the companies you listed are viewed negatively, but that's not because they have a sustainable business model. Don't underestimate the many perfectly valid reasons those companies earned their reputations.
> Craigslist? They haven't really changed their core model
For what it's worth, in my local (smaller city, not a tech hub) market, Craigslist is basically dead, killed by Facebook Marketplace; and I'm assuming my market isn't the only such one. So it's possible that they will need to change their model, or at least how they execute upon it.
Funny: Craigslist isn't even loading for me at the moment, and DownDetector shows it's not just me.
For what it's worth, in my local (smaller city, not a tech hub) market, Craigslist is basically dead, killed by Facebook Marketplace; and I'm assuming my market isn't the only such one. So it's possible that they will need to change their model, or at least how they execute upon it.
Funny: Craigslist isn't even loading for me at the moment, and DownDetector shows it's not just me.
McDonald’s is an interesting company to mention. McDonalds corporate isn’t even really in the fast food business, they’re a real estate company. Franchisees have to rent land from corporate, that’s how they make almost all their money.
Individual McDonald’s Restaurants are barely profitable, most stores bringing in less than $100k profit per year. For how widespread they are, the restaurants themselves really aren’t a great business to be in.
Individual McDonald’s Restaurants are barely profitable, most stores bringing in less than $100k profit per year. For how widespread they are, the restaurants themselves really aren’t a great business to be in.
Franchise owner makes 150k average on a store. Everything is purchased through corp so a tremendous amount of store revenue flows through them. The money for any land leasing comes from the fast food revenue.
That is to say, it's an overly reductive assessment that McDonald's is not in the fast food business.
That is to say, it's an overly reductive assessment that McDonald's is not in the fast food business.
[deleted]
Not only that, but their Board seems to make much of their money on adjacent business as well (such as required equipment).
Look at what Lowe's did with the Craftsman brand.
I think it's about time that we no longer accept this strategy as valid.
Who is "we"? Unless you have a large financial stake in the company you aren't part of the discussion at all.
We live in a society. If you want to build a company in international waters cut off from the rest of the world, by all means. I hear there was a nice anti-regulation company that has a boat they don't need anymore, so maybe you could take over the lease. There's a reason why we decided banks have to have be monitored and if they're insolvent they can be taken over, or why you have to IPO and provide a bunch of information to investors if you want to sell stock in your company. There's "private" transactions that create enough systemic risk so that we have to regulate them.
As SO contributors, _we_ have a say with regard to our future consideration of SO as a destination of our contributions.
Since SO is just a platform, it can't survive without _our_ content.
People have much more power than they think.
Since SO is just a platform, it can't survive without _our_ content.
People have much more power than they think.
That only works if all SO contributors band together and make decisions as a collective bloc. At the moment you are only speaking for yourself. Most others who add value to the platform are going to keep doing so regardless.
If only there was something to enable lots of people to coordinate easily ... like ... a big computer network?
Valid according to the type of capitalist economy the rich, powerful and money hungry want: one where everything revolves around shareholder value, rather than societal value. In that economy, it doesn't matter how destructive your business model is, as long as the shareholders get value out of it.
Friedman's idea that corporations that maximising shareholder value has clearly been the single most destructive ideal that has plagued this planet for the past half century, but to too many people in power it is still the rule.
It's also the reason why we still keep burning coal and oil, despite knowing that we're destroying our planet that way.
Friedman's idea that corporations that maximising shareholder value has clearly been the single most destructive ideal that has plagued this planet for the past half century, but to too many people in power it is still the rule.
It's also the reason why we still keep burning coal and oil, despite knowing that we're destroying our planet that way.
People were doing this long before Friedman was even born. People were doing it before capitalism as we know it even existed. Friedman's idea is just retroactive justification for one of the fundamental evils in human nature.
> The good of the community and the well-being of the users are completely irrelevant in this strategy.
Nor is the well-being of the company's employees, or at least the stability of their job and the foreseeability of their future.
It is one more example of a situation where a worker's union fighting for the interest of both the workers and the company (in the sense of the platform/product, not the shareholders) would be to the benefits for the longevity of the business and for the users too.
Nor is the well-being of the company's employees, or at least the stability of their job and the foreseeability of their future.
It is one more example of a situation where a worker's union fighting for the interest of both the workers and the company (in the sense of the platform/product, not the shareholders) would be to the benefits for the longevity of the business and for the users too.
You have a pretty strange definition of ‘valid’.
Classic Star Trek (TOS) exchange [0]...
Anan 7: I'm glad you approve.
Spock: I do *not* approve. I understand.
[0]: https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/A_Taste_of_Armageddon_(...
Anan 7: I'm glad you approve.
Spock: I do *not* approve. I understand.
[0]: https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/A_Taste_of_Armageddon_(...
It was a poor choice of words. I didn't mean valid in terms of morally right. I meant valid in terms of economically rational in today's climate.
“not outright illegal in every jurisdiction”
I'd say it's actually pretty typical of corporations operated by global investment groups.
Thank goodness everything on the site is licensed creative commons, so you can stand up a replacement pretty quick. Mathoverflow even owns their own domain.
If I were the semi benevolent dictator of the world, I'd make a law that said: all middle managers up to the CEO must spend 20% of their time doing entry level work in the company. Same with politicians.
If you are insulated from what your company does, or constituents do, you can't effectively wield the power granted to you.
Which leads me to an even more unpopular "authoritarian" opinion: the richest people are the furthest out of touch and thus least qualified to wield so much power. There should be a cap on personal wealth. And generational wealth should be prevented from creating dynasties. There should be no billionaires.
If you are insulated from what your company does, or constituents do, you can't effectively wield the power granted to you.
Which leads me to an even more unpopular "authoritarian" opinion: the richest people are the furthest out of touch and thus least qualified to wield so much power. There should be a cap on personal wealth. And generational wealth should be prevented from creating dynasties. There should be no billionaires.
I don't think the problem is ignorance, but different motivations. Executive leadership often wants to maximize profit and growth. Everybody else [generally] wants to maximize the company's performance at what it does. In an ideal world the two should be pretty much the same thing, in reality they're often very disconnected, especially in any product that is offered for free. Free products completely distort normal operations because the customer is no longer the customer, but something closer to the product itself - as that's what's "really" sold.
So it seems that any solution would require having executive leadership not driven by growth+profit, or removing the disconnect between "quality" and growth+profit.
So it seems that any solution would require having executive leadership not driven by growth+profit, or removing the disconnect between "quality" and growth+profit.
Everyone wants what's best for themselves.
You have my vote. Although as dictator, maybe you don't need it.
Hard agree, but it’s not actionable for anyone not rich.
Bottom up approaches are the only things that will solve these things, so yes you and me have to put our money and talents where our mouths are.
This board tends towards believing in democracy yet we spend half+ of our waking hours existing within non-democratic institutions…they’re not even representative republics, the thing we pass off as pro-democracy today.
If we want it, we have to build it, we have to build safe-guards, and we have to stand by and not loot as much money as possible when the time presents.
We have so far shown we are collectively not capable of doing these things.
Are there any multi-billion dollar organizations that work on the principles we so desire in our own government? Maybe democracy is just a joke and a sentiment for feel-good buy-in from the masses.
“Tech” has devolved into crony- capitalism on crack. But we’ve minted quite a few average-joe millionaires, so yay?
Bottom up approaches are the only things that will solve these things, so yes you and me have to put our money and talents where our mouths are.
This board tends towards believing in democracy yet we spend half+ of our waking hours existing within non-democratic institutions…they’re not even representative republics, the thing we pass off as pro-democracy today.
If we want it, we have to build it, we have to build safe-guards, and we have to stand by and not loot as much money as possible when the time presents.
We have so far shown we are collectively not capable of doing these things.
Are there any multi-billion dollar organizations that work on the principles we so desire in our own government? Maybe democracy is just a joke and a sentiment for feel-good buy-in from the masses.
“Tech” has devolved into crony- capitalism on crack. But we’ve minted quite a few average-joe millionaires, so yay?
The book Reinventing Organizations walks through a number of examples of large organizations that tried to have a bottom-up decision-making process, some succeeded for the long haul, some reverted back to top-down.
> If I were the semi benevolent dictator of the world, I'd make a law that said: all middle managers up to the CEO must spend 20% of their time doing entry level work in the company.
Maybe try this rule in your own company first. If it’s an improvement over the current system you’ll have a competitive advantage. If it doesn’t work, then you wouldn’t have been benevolent.
> the richest people are the furthest out of touch and thus least qualified to wield so much power
I’m not connected to anyone above “vacation-house rich”, but at their level a lot of the power they wield is in experience, communication and connections. If I’m going to invest in a project, I want someone who’s experienced in the domain, can clearly communicate their vision and has connections in the industry. Wealthy people often tick those boxes.
Here are some alternative free market idea for you:
1. Grant all FTEs some type of ownership in the company (stock, options or profit sharing), and do so on a recurring basis as well
2. Peg the CEOs total comp to be a max of 20x the lowest earner in the company. If the CEO gets a bonus, all FTEs get a minimum of 1/20th that amount as well.
Maybe try this rule in your own company first. If it’s an improvement over the current system you’ll have a competitive advantage. If it doesn’t work, then you wouldn’t have been benevolent.
> the richest people are the furthest out of touch and thus least qualified to wield so much power
I’m not connected to anyone above “vacation-house rich”, but at their level a lot of the power they wield is in experience, communication and connections. If I’m going to invest in a project, I want someone who’s experienced in the domain, can clearly communicate their vision and has connections in the industry. Wealthy people often tick those boxes.
Here are some alternative free market idea for you:
1. Grant all FTEs some type of ownership in the company (stock, options or profit sharing), and do so on a recurring basis as well
2. Peg the CEOs total comp to be a max of 20x the lowest earner in the company. If the CEO gets a bonus, all FTEs get a minimum of 1/20th that amount as well.
I like both those ideas!
Especially the 2nd one. Linking CEO compensation to FTE pay feels like a good way to remind the powerful that their power derives from the consent of their employees. Plus I'm very against the massive inequality that has skyrocketed in the past few decades.
I just wish there was a way to get the powerful to understand that it's not a one way relationship. The 2 parts, FTEs and executives, both rely on each other to function. But so many people don't want that balance, one way or another.
Especially the 2nd one. Linking CEO compensation to FTE pay feels like a good way to remind the powerful that their power derives from the consent of their employees. Plus I'm very against the massive inequality that has skyrocketed in the past few decades.
I just wish there was a way to get the powerful to understand that it's not a one way relationship. The 2 parts, FTEs and executives, both rely on each other to function. But so many people don't want that balance, one way or another.
> I just wish there was a way to get the powerful to understand that it's not a one way relationship
I guarantee you, they do understand that. This is not a matter of changing individuals by teaching them and "getting them to understand". The system as a whole must be changed. The mechanisms that allow those people to exist in the first place must be destroyed.
FTEs rely on executives on the current system, but it doesn't have to be that way. The opposite is not true, tho. There are no executives without workers.
As Abraham Lincoln once said:
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
I guarantee you, they do understand that. This is not a matter of changing individuals by teaching them and "getting them to understand". The system as a whole must be changed. The mechanisms that allow those people to exist in the first place must be destroyed.
FTEs rely on executives on the current system, but it doesn't have to be that way. The opposite is not true, tho. There are no executives without workers.
As Abraham Lincoln once said:
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
Why not just require all large companies to be employee-owned co-ops? That's the only way you truly make it so that "their power derives from the consent of their employees".
https://kanbanzone.com/resources/lean/toyota-production-syst...
Everyone needs to really learn what the Toyota Production system has taught manufacturing for decades.
Everyone needs to really learn what the Toyota Production system has taught manufacturing for decades.
How do I join the party where do I sign?
Lots of similar ideas exist in politics. Look for Socialist or Communist in the party name.
I guess that's intended to be snark but contrary to what a surprising number of people seem to think, socialist ideas make many countries nice places to live. Communism of course is a different matter, but you know that.
It did come out snarky but that wasn't my intention. I'm one of those who vote for "socialist ideas" and I'm also one of those who disagree that "communism is a different matter".
> There should be no billionaires.
This just means, “people shouldn’t be able to own large companies”. You’re going to need strong evidence that relinquishing ownership of any successful company to the government (or whoever you give the absconded shares to) is a way to run a sustainable company.
What large country (50m+) has successfully eliminated billionaires without eliminating most of their own economy?
This just means, “people shouldn’t be able to own large companies”. You’re going to need strong evidence that relinquishing ownership of any successful company to the government (or whoever you give the absconded shares to) is a way to run a sustainable company.
What large country (50m+) has successfully eliminated billionaires without eliminating most of their own economy?
> relinquishing ownership of any successful company to the government
Why the government? Why not collective ownership by workers, and maybe partly to users in applicable cases?
Also, why would the existence of such big companies be an absolute necessity in the first place?
Why the government? Why not collective ownership by workers, and maybe partly to users in applicable cases?
Also, why would the existence of such big companies be an absolute necessity in the first place?
To your second paragraph…
Big orgs (regardless of public or private) can exploit economies of scale, which makes cheap products possible and available to the masses.
Big orgs have big org problems that small orgs don’t (HR, Legal, Architecture, …), so they need specialist senior leaders who spend their days doing things that rank-and-file staff don’t understand, and usually don’t even know need to be done.
HN loves to rag on the C-suite, but they are real jobs that need real skills. To all the armchair CxOs confident that boards are idiots and are paying their execs for nothing, all I can say is: try it.
Big orgs (regardless of public or private) can exploit economies of scale, which makes cheap products possible and available to the masses.
Big orgs have big org problems that small orgs don’t (HR, Legal, Architecture, …), so they need specialist senior leaders who spend their days doing things that rank-and-file staff don’t understand, and usually don’t even know need to be done.
HN loves to rag on the C-suite, but they are real jobs that need real skills. To all the armchair CxOs confident that boards are idiots and are paying their execs for nothing, all I can say is: try it.
Economies of scale matter less in industries where the most important factor in the cost of the product is labor, which is the case for software engineering. Unless, of course, you're implying that big orgs can cut costs by driving wages down.
And the problem with large corporate boards isn't that they're idiots - it's that they're dominated by sociopaths. They aren't paying their execs for nothing - they're paying their execs to screw over their employees and their customers most effectively - which is, indeed, a real job that does need real skills.
And the problem with large corporate boards isn't that they're idiots - it's that they're dominated by sociopaths. They aren't paying their execs for nothing - they're paying their execs to screw over their employees and their customers most effectively - which is, indeed, a real job that does need real skills.
Or maybe companies should never get that big. Keep them small and human scale. Large companies represent an unreasonable concentration of wealth and therefore power. I think they're fundamentally a threat to democracy.
My pet theory is ban marketing budgets beyond a certain size
I'd be fine with SO turning into the place where effectively useful AI based answers get posted, where humans have worked together with AI to obtain a valid result, proven to be correct. In that case I wouldn't care if someone posts an AI answer, as long as it is guaranteed to be valid.
That's the place which SO can take in a world with AI assistants.
SO should not use AI to generate content, but to organize it and make it searchable.
It could shift towards the analysis of existing and generation of new content when AI is really ready for it, but I don't see it happen within the next couple of years. And at that point a LLM would probably be smart enough as to not have its user require the use of SO.
Maybe limiting the posting of commented AI results to the top 5% or so, because from the content I've seen new users posting (specially the questions), the quality has degraded strongly over the last 10 years. There's close to zero effort in crafting good questions from many of them.
That's the place which SO can take in a world with AI assistants.
SO should not use AI to generate content, but to organize it and make it searchable.
It could shift towards the analysis of existing and generation of new content when AI is really ready for it, but I don't see it happen within the next couple of years. And at that point a LLM would probably be smart enough as to not have its user require the use of SO.
Maybe limiting the posting of commented AI results to the top 5% or so, because from the content I've seen new users posting (specially the questions), the quality has degraded strongly over the last 10 years. There's close to zero effort in crafting good questions from many of them.
I wouldn't use it if it means AI will be trained on my code unless they pay me per answer or vote. I already removed everything from GitHub etc. AI on SO smells like how Google's business strategy is advertising first, search second. SO will be in the same position soon.
Frankly I can foresee reduced online participation on places like Stack Overflow. Why would anyone help train AI, that employers are eager to replace you with, without getting anything in return?
The “work together with AI” is just a transitional phrase. The endgame is to completely replace the employee.
The “work together with AI” is just a transitional phrase. The endgame is to completely replace the employee.
I don't understand this attitude. If your code is used to train AI, then it would be used to help more people in a wider variety of contexts. So assuming that your goal is to help people (which I assume it is since SO doesn't pay for answers), wouldn't you be excited about AI learning from you?
Current manifestations of AI help don't include attribution of sources. That's also an important component of participation on SO (and Github).
> It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it! — Upton Sinclair
Slightly OT, but it's counter-productive to start a blog / an article with a well known quote that's been used and re-used ad nauseam. It makes the reader suspicious that they're not going to read something truly original, and tells them the author may have a thing for authority.
I think it's best not to use quotes at all, but if you must, find quotes that are 1/ new and 2/ counter-intuitive, or at least funny.
The above quote, in addition to being famous, isn't counter-intuitive; it's an interesting reformulation of a simple observation: of course people don't usually saw off the branch they're sitting on, even if it means ignoring some facts.
Tell me something I don't know.
Slightly OT, but it's counter-productive to start a blog / an article with a well known quote that's been used and re-used ad nauseam. It makes the reader suspicious that they're not going to read something truly original, and tells them the author may have a thing for authority.
I think it's best not to use quotes at all, but if you must, find quotes that are 1/ new and 2/ counter-intuitive, or at least funny.
The above quote, in addition to being famous, isn't counter-intuitive; it's an interesting reformulation of a simple observation: of course people don't usually saw off the branch they're sitting on, even if it means ignoring some facts.
Tell me something I don't know.
Author here and I agree actually. The quote was the first thing I wrote and I never went back to consider if it still made sense for the post as a whole. Given the title (which is maybe more combative than I intended?) I don't think I need it. I'm planning on watching the CEO's announcement today and updating the post. Unless there's a better use for the quote, it'll be gone in the next edit. Thanks for the feedback!
Thanks for taking it well and graciously... Sorry for the tone! (I really feel this specific quote is so used it's kind of meaningless now. But still, I could have said it better.)
A few years ago, Stackoverflow bragged about how they hosted their entire infrastructure on a dozen of servers. Today I learn that they are losing $80 million a year? What the hell are they doing with that money?
Salaries presumably. Apparently they have 500 employees, probably on crazy SF salaries. Easily $1-200m/year.
> Apparently they have 500 employee
Then it's a management problem: what were those people hired to do, given that the content is generated and curated by community alone?
Given that the software running StackOverflow has been working for many years without signifiant changes, they could probably have stuck to ten times less employees and generate substantial profit, but eh that doesn't make a good exit valuation…
> Easily $1-200m/year.
What is this supposed to mean?
Then it's a management problem: what were those people hired to do, given that the content is generated and curated by community alone?
Given that the software running StackOverflow has been working for many years without signifiant changes, they could probably have stuck to ten times less employees and generate substantial profit, but eh that doesn't make a good exit valuation…
> Easily $1-200m/year.
What is this supposed to mean?
[deleted]
"from my standpoint, human-generated community content has taken us to this level, we have a large impact, but there are also so many problems we can solve by leveraging this technology."
LOL. "All your free hard work answering questions powered our profits thus far, but y'know it's expensive to keep y'all in check, and now we need to make megabucks, so we're going to replace you with machines for the next stage of our journey."
LOL. "All your free hard work answering questions powered our profits thus far, but y'know it's expensive to keep y'all in check, and now we need to make megabucks, so we're going to replace you with machines for the next stage of our journey."
Why don't they use LLM chatbots to encourage great questions and make it easier to ask them?
Somehow adding LLMs to the side of the answers feels incorrect to me in this particular case.
Somehow adding LLMs to the side of the answers feels incorrect to me in this particular case.
Has stackoverflow ever had a bootstrappy phase of profitability or has it been a VC bonfire ever since inception? If the latter is closer to the truth, I find it a little too easy to talk down the person in charge of keeping investors happy for showing signs of desperation instead of continuing rose-tinted visions from the early days. (if it has been profitable, yeah, shame on you for cutting up the goose that laid golden eggs in search for more)
I think that it did. It was initially created by only a few people in 2008 [1] but then Joel Spolsky wrote a blog post about seeking VC investment in early 2010 [2] and the series A was announced in May that year [3]. The VC investment round was around the same time as the company announced the free Stack Exchange network for other topics not covered by their original site [4].
1. https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2008/09/15/stack-overflow-lau... 2. https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2010/02/14/raising-money-for-... 3. https://stackoverflow.blog/2010/05/04/announcing-our-series-... 4. https://web.archive.org/web/20100416154936/http://blog.stack...
1. https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2008/09/15/stack-overflow-lau... 2. https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2010/02/14/raising-money-for-... 3. https://stackoverflow.blog/2010/05/04/announcing-our-series-... 4. https://web.archive.org/web/20100416154936/http://blog.stack...
While reddit's failure with the whole strike was fruitless it does I think highlight that at the end of the day you cannot treat the community in a community oriented products as a second thought.
With stack overflow it's very odd how chasing some flavor of the year is seen as preferable than expanding and enhancing the community aspect of stack overflow.
With stack overflow it's very odd how chasing some flavor of the year is seen as preferable than expanding and enhancing the community aspect of stack overflow.
> highlight that at the end of the day you cannot treat the community in a community oriented products as a second thought
Reddit and the ongoing SO-vs-moderator conflicts show precisely that. I stopped using Reddit and mostly stopped using SO, but now what? There's no good alternative. I just help fewer people now.
Reddit and the ongoing SO-vs-moderator conflicts show precisely that. I stopped using Reddit and mostly stopped using SO, but now what? There's no good alternative. I just help fewer people now.
MBA CEOs as a risk for engineering companies and longterm value destroyers. The book.
Losing money while growing revenue isn't necessarily a bad thing. This can be caused by growth investing, and is often the right thing to do. Amazon is a famous example of this line of thinking.
Losing money while growing revenue isn't necessarily a bad thing.
If you strongly believe that you have a viable long term plan to switch to a profitable model when the time is right, sure. When AI comes along and wrecks your business before you manage to extract the profit then you can say (with hindsight) you made a mistake by waiting too long. I'm not saying this is the case for SO, but it might be. Time will tell.
Getting to profit quickly is a hedge against change. Nothing guarantees that your business will be around forever. If you don't take the money when its there you might lose the chance.
If you strongly believe that you have a viable long term plan to switch to a profitable model when the time is right, sure. When AI comes along and wrecks your business before you manage to extract the profit then you can say (with hindsight) you made a mistake by waiting too long. I'm not saying this is the case for SO, but it might be. Time will tell.
Getting to profit quickly is a hedge against change. Nothing guarantees that your business will be around forever. If you don't take the money when its there you might lose the chance.
It becomes a bit less viable during these times of higher interest rates.
But what's there to even invest in for SO? Ad tech? Selling some LLM trained on their data? I can think of a whole bunch of silly ideas here, but none of them seem anywhere near comparable to Amazon investing in a vertically integrated supply chain for e-commerce and cloud computing.
I found an article: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200728005330/en/Sta...
They're investing in teams and knowledge management. Sounds like they're going after the Enterprise.
They're investing in teams and knowledge management. Sounds like they're going after the Enterprise.
Best of luck to them, I know they've been trying to push a "for teams" product for years but I've never heard of anyone who has even expressed interest in it. Atlassian will be a tough nut to crack. Job board seems like a much better idea, but I'm not the CEO or investors so what do I know?
The job board was also a finished product. They could have automated just about anything manual, and kept it going with a small team. For the brand promotion alone it was worth it to keep it going.
Well, I'm used to having unpopular opinions. So while I know that I will be crucified for saying this, I will say it anyway.
Stack Overflow absolutely _has_ to integrate AI if there is any chance of it continuing as a viable business. How do we know this? For starters, a massive portion of users have already stopped asking questions on Stack Overflow and switched to asking ChatGPT.
The situation with the moderators and politics and community interaction might have been botched. Maybe. But I suspect that there might not have been any way to shift direction without making the community extremely angry.
It's not human equivalent. But it can provide useful info and is getting better at a rapid pace. They did not have a choice about integrating AI deeply.
Part of this is people failing to understand the capabilities of the leading edge AI models and how that changes things.
Stack Overflow absolutely _has_ to integrate AI if there is any chance of it continuing as a viable business. How do we know this? For starters, a massive portion of users have already stopped asking questions on Stack Overflow and switched to asking ChatGPT.
The situation with the moderators and politics and community interaction might have been botched. Maybe. But I suspect that there might not have been any way to shift direction without making the community extremely angry.
It's not human equivalent. But it can provide useful info and is getting better at a rapid pace. They did not have a choice about integrating AI deeply.
Part of this is people failing to understand the capabilities of the leading edge AI models and how that changes things.
>> which lost $42 million over 6 months and had just laid off 10% of its employees
most tech companies lay offs have been around 10% mark - and it started before general public's orgasmic-adoption of A.I.
like all platforms, Stack Overfloow, overflowed their market. layoffs and restructuring is a way to address that.
if you account the rise of "tech streaming" platforms like youtube, twitch, and elearning orgs like udemy etc, it's no surprise that students & professionals choose alternatives to Stack.
most tech companies lay offs have been around 10% mark - and it started before general public's orgasmic-adoption of A.I.
like all platforms, Stack Overfloow, overflowed their market. layoffs and restructuring is a way to address that.
if you account the rise of "tech streaming" platforms like youtube, twitch, and elearning orgs like udemy etc, it's no surprise that students & professionals choose alternatives to Stack.
ChatGPT and Discord communities replaced SO for me.
It's way faster to get answers.
While that was a perfect outcome for you, but when someone else needs the same or similar question answered they have to ask ChatGPT or find a relevant Discord to ask again.
This was the original problem that Stackoverflow was supposed to solve, and did do at the beginning.
This was the original problem that Stackoverflow was supposed to solve, and did do at the beginning.
> or find a relevant Discord to ask again.
and AFAIK Discord is not indexed by Google, so the answer is likely never to be found. This goes completely against the idea of the knowledge re-use
and AFAIK Discord is not indexed by Google, so the answer is likely never to be found. This goes completely against the idea of the knowledge re-use
Most large corporations block ChatGPT and Discord usage. Developers at those companies still have access to SO.
Maybe he’s right. Maybe LLMs will also learn to waste 10 hours for me before I realize I typed torch.Tensor instead of torch.tensor and post on SO for my benefit. /s
If you value answers on SO, this is your call to grab your local copy (kiwix allows that), which is immune to investors whims and CEOs mistakes.
It blows my mind that SO is loosing money. Seriously WTF? Is management simply incompetent or what gives?
As long as keep remembering to not do what Experts Exchange did, they'll get by.
theteapot(2)
Stack overflow and AI can coexist. AI doesn't enforce rules on how a question has to be asked or downvote you. It will be helpful for stack overflow to have AI.
The author wants a pur8st approach, i think it having a purist approach doesn't work because AI fills some gaps.
The author wants a pur8st approach, i think it having a purist approach doesn't work because AI fills some gaps.
What will improve SO is if you had an AI that could downvote bad answers and questions and especially find duplicates and point the new question to the old question.
This would save a lot of experienced users time
This would make it easier to find the good answers.
This would save a lot of experienced users time
This would make it easier to find the good answers.
> What will improve SO is if you had an AI that could downvote bad answers and questions and especially find duplicates
Yes, because if there's one thing Stack Overflow needed, it was more negativity. /s
Yes, because if there's one thing Stack Overflow needed, it was more negativity. /s
If SO votes help train AI it will turn SO into the equivalent of how Google isn't a search company, but an advertisement company with a search engine.
Thank god Wikipedia isn’t run like Stack Overflow. As an end user, they have pretty much the same value proposition: user generated answers to my questions. Wikipedia is still doing well, meanwhile it seems SO is constantly being driven off a cliff by bimbos in management.
Not everything needs to be a damn unicorn. SO is an information repository. They need to accept that stop trying to “enhance” it with more crap because they don’t realize their median user is a junior dev who really just needs to serialize a Java object and isn’t going to pay or put up with any LLM-generated nonsense.
SO doesn’t need large language models. What they really need is a better model of what answers are good, what answers are outdated, and what answers should be expanded to include more info (and sometimes, what answers should be slimmed down a bit). Turn the top answer to popular questions into a wiki so that everyone can update it. And then add backlinks for questions which were closed for being “duplicates”. It solves so many problems SO has.
Another thing. This “comments aren’t for extended discussion” nonsense needs to go too. Any question could easily include a Reddit-style discussion tab to facilitate discussion. I’m sure much of it would be at least as valuable as the answers themselves.