I mean is it not clear that companies are just an abstraction for a network of people, and you obviously must be be good with those people, ie seduce them into promoting you. And is it not clear that on the other side, you must keep your options open such that you find an alternative (job) if they are weird / toxic / dont like you / you dont like them?
This is not an easy question. It seemingly boils down to: what are fair ways to extract value from citizens for the shared value of the state?
However, the root questions are: what should the state provide, how much, and of what nature? A secondary question then becomes how important the redistributive aspect is. That’s what you’re seemingly alluding to when you say: people work, get taxed on it, but others automate that work and this automation does not get taxed.
Following that line of thinking makes sense, but it also contradicts the core benefit of automation, which is to delete non-needed work, make things cheaper, and make the value creator richer.
If the goal of redistribution is usually that “more” people reach a higher standard of living, then adding taxes and friction to processes like automation may conflict with that goal, given that automation is arguably one of the strongest natural drivers of higher living standards overall.
Of course, the counterpoint to “what and how much should the state provide” is “who should pitch in, and how much,” which is what you’re focusing on. I mostly agree that everyone should be taxed fairly, but I also see many exemption cases, because taxes are friction and we often want certain things to be frictionless. For example, I would oppose taxes on life-saving surgeries. But where do you draw the line? What about automation that indirectly enables or improves life-saving surgery?
I see a natural equilibrium with a tension: automation (also through AI) causes unit economics to drop and results in cheaper prices. At the same time, salaries for contributors grow because their impact is so high. So you end up with a new equilibrium of much cheaper prices and much higher salaries. What, however, about the people who can’t contribute? IMO the most natural and fair approach is to support (through whatever means) people’s “education”, allowing them to upgrade their skills so that they can contribute. IMO this leads to a new tension: not rich vs poor, or useful vs useless, but people who can up-level their skills vs those who don’t. And I think, at its extreme, it boils down to this: how much plasticity does your brain have? Because every other constraint, society can adapt or accommodate for.
I think by vibe coding he means taking these things at face value instead of rigorously looking if they are up to the standard. When coding you would rigorously look if the code is good / produces any bugs. With vibe coding, you give a prompt and just accept the output, which might be full of errors and blow up (or melt). The analogy is that, yes you can print airplane parts, but they were sloppy and just accepted them at face value instead of rigorously looking if they are up to the required (bug free) standard, ie they wont melt.
I don’t see how “tech” is limited to software. While your case might be made for software, according to many accounts Musk is a strong driver on the hardware side. For instance, I’ve read the Tesla and SpaceX books by Eric Berger, which are much more focused on technical things compared to the more mainstream books. And while Musk is not in the trenches with a screwdriver, he’s not faking it either.
To be honest, I’m actually interested in this hypothesis: is he legitimately skilled/knowledgeable, or is he indeed faking it? And for either side I would like to see evidence. This question is interesting to me because some of his companies have made substantial contributions to pushing the frontier of technology (reusable landing, high launch cadence, electric cars, energy).
If he is really faking it, that might even be good, because the success of his companies might be replicable and could continue without him. But what if he is not?
While your comment represents a common view, also here on HN, I find it bizarre: Hacker News is in part about innovative new technologies, and such new behaviours around them. For what it’s worth, in the last 5 years LLM have been extremely successful tech that has shaped society, maybe to the scale of the iPhone when it came out. Yet this comment is like the “I can’t believe everyone is staring at their phone in the subway instead of talking” trope or “this couple is on a date but they’re just on their phones.” On Hacker News I would expect people to be more open to such new behaviours as they emerge, instead of kind of kink-shaming them. I myself talk hours to ChatGPT, and am astounded by this new tech. I certainly find it better than TikTok (which after trying out I don’t allow myself to use).
I dont disagree, but you can horizontally scale a monolith too, no? So scaling vert vs horiz is independent of microservices, its just that separating services allows you to be precise with your scaling. Ie you can scale up a compute heavy micorservice by 100x, the upload service by 10x but keep the user service at low scale. I agree that one can vert scale, why not. And I also agree that there are probably big microservices. At my last workplace, we also had people very bullish on microservices but for bad reasons and it didn't make sense, ie ideology.
I fully agree on workplace politics, but for system design interviews, are you not also just supposed to ask your interviewer, ie give them your premises and if they like your conclusions? I also understand that some companies and their interviews are weird, but thats okay too, no? You just reject them and move on.
Im no world leading expert but as far as I understand, coupled with events, if an unimportant service goes offline for 5 min (due to some crash, ie "fault"), its possible to have a graceful degradation, meaning the rest of the system still works, maybe with reduced ability. With events, other systems simply stop receiving events from the dead service. I agree you can achieve a lot of this also in a monolith with try catch and error handling, but I guess there is an inherent decoupling in having different services run on separate nodes.
I dont quite follow. I understand mono vs micro services, and in the last 3 weeks I had to study for system design and do the interviews to get offers.
Its a tradeoff, and the system design interview is meant to see if one understands how systems can scale to hypothetical (maybe unrealistic) high loads. In this context the only reason for a microservice is independent scaling and with that also fault tolerance if an unimportant service goes down. But its really the independent scaling. One would clearly say that a monolith is good for the start because it offer simplicity or low complexity but it doesn't scale well to the hypothetical of mega scale.
This is a catastrophic moral failing on who ever prompted this. Next thing they will ban chatgpt from teaching you stuff because its not a certified licensed teacher. A few weeks ago my right eye hurt a fair bit, and after it got worse for 24 ours, I consulted chatGPT. It gave me good advice. Of course it sort of hallucinated this or that but it gave me a good overview and different medications. With this knowledge I went to my pharmacy. I wanted to buy a cream chatGPT recommended, its purpose being a sort of disinfectant for the eye. The pharmacist was sceptical but said "sure, try it, maybe it will do good". He did tell me that the eye drops that gpt urged me to get were overkill so I didn't get those. I used the eye cream for some days, and the eye issue got better and went away as soon as I started using it. Maybe it was all a conincidence but I dont think so. In the past gpt has saved me from the kafkaesque healthcare system here in Berlin that I pay ~700 a month for, by explaining a MRI result (translating medical language), background info on injuries I've got such as a sprained ankle, and recovery time scenarios for a toe I've broke. Contrast the toe experience with the ER that made me wait for 6 hours and didn't believe me until they saw the X-rays, and gave me nothing (no cast or anything) and said "good luck". The medical system in germany will either never improve or at a glacial pace, so maybe in 60 years. But it has lost its monopoly thanks to chatGPT. If this news is real, I will probably switch to payed grok, which would be sad.
Well, let’s assume you’re correct about all that. To me, it seems he was already quite rich before doing all the Trump-related things you mentioned. Those might have made him richer, but I’d suspect they didn’t move the needle much compared to his real profit centers (probably Starlink and Tesla). If anything, I’d argue those actions made him poorer by further damaging his reputation. And any “power grab” motives he may have had likely evaporated after his fallout with Trump. One current example is exactly what sparked this thread: the NASA Chief seemingly trying to impress Trump by attacking SpaceX.
The tone of voice suggests you dislike Musk, but I will still answer in good faith. From what I can see from the outside, he has consistently for many years stated the same goals and worked on them. Any or most financial gains he made, he invested into his companies which work on accomplishing those goals (for example, going to Mars). The most notable example was investing his PayPal money into Tesla and SpaceX when they both were at risk of going out. He also has a reputation for working a lot, though it may be exaggerated, but he looks fairly unhealthy so maybe not too far off. Compared to other super rich people, he seems to spend less time in lavish ways, for example on yachts or similar. He probably still spends more money than we can imagine on unnecessary things, but on the spectrum of rich people he doesn't seem to be the most frivolous. Finally, he has said on Twitter that he doesn't care about money but needs resources for his goals, for example going to Mars. And after everything I’ve seen and the examples listed, it doesn’t seem totally implausible that he means it.