> but I don't think she has any rights to voices that merely sound like hers, when they're not being used to fraudently imply that she's involved.
IANAL but it's actually not that simple. There are laws and precedents around soundalikes.
I think the cultural defense for this is really lame. Was there really cultural value in evoking "Her"? Because outside of the narcissistic male nerd culture of laughing at your own jokes, and fixating on your own cleverness, there doesn't seem to be. No one outside of this bubble actually thinks it's super cool and culturally valuable for tech companies to attempt reinvent - seemingly without a trace of irony or self-awareness - the cautionary tales and trappings of dystopian sci-fi.
From what I have seen, the demos struck the average person as cringey and left women in particular with a deep sense of revulsion.
Just to say, I think the demo is lame too, and the film was fine but no Black Mirror. I still think there's cultural value, even if it's not the kind of culture that appeals to me.
Quick check of the bio reveals his alternative is Svelte. Weird since the usual Svelte argument is that it's so simple anyone can pick it up and be effective the next day - unlike bloated old React where each team needs an elite React hooks whisperer to navigate the hundreds of footguns required to correctly render a list without tearing under React Suspense.
Feels a lot like a lengthier, polemical way of saying that frameworks become popular because they allow more people to do more stuff more easily. But this is bad because businesses benefit or something.
None of the ideas here stand up to scrutiny. For example, Angular with its more opinionated design and framework approach was a much better choice for regularizing developer effort and making devs fungible. But by all accounts it lost to React, which is frequently criticized in comparison for allowing too much individual variation in development style.
React itself has become increasingly more complex over the years as it's moved up the S curve and the design direction is driven towards more and more remote parts of the problem space. More than ever, it requires specialized knowledge to use correctly.
Svelte - of which the author is a fan - fits his thesis much more than React. Svelte is billed as simpler and easier to learn and use than React, without requiring developers to wrap their heads around concepts like hooks, reducers and suspense.
There is no point to the article. It's another boring anti-React/Electron screed but with a conspiratorial, junior high polsci bent to it.
Having frameworks that allow more devs to do more things means correspondingly that more people can be hired for those things with less training. In this respect, there is an obvious overlap between employer and developer interests.
Take MongoDB from the article. IME the biggest advocates for MongoDB are not managers (who barely have any idea what it is). It's developers who just want an "easy" way to store data that corresponds closely to the JSON document format they are used to, and doesn't force them to think about "annoying" and "outdated" things like relational modeling, joins and schema migrations.
If fungibility and lowest common denominator hiring drove the popularity of dev tools, then .NET and Angular would be ruling the roost.
No. The developer's interests (able to do more stuff more easily) and management's interests (making developers commodities instead of highly skilled workers) are emphatically not the same; that's a major part of the article's point. (Unless you're a developer that owns your own company so you are management--which is not the situation the article is talking about.)
If medicine is just following a decision tree why would we need LLMs to do it? Computers have been able to follow decision trees for 70 years or something.
> Most places I've worked in the last 6 or so years are obsessed with tooling and add so many lint rules that it's often impossible to merge your pull request if you decide to format your code in a way that violates the rules in some trivial way.
Symptom of nothing better to do, I have found ;)
Hard to picture someone who values their time blocking PRs on tiny stylistic nits.
Seems like a bizarre omission from the article given the number of tangents and topics covered. My guess is that going down the traditional medicine route lead to him being told there was no organic basis to the pain.
As someone who went through a similar experience, I would not be surprised if the author's pain is/was entirely psychosomatic (this doesn't diminish its severity or significance). Probably a direct result of burnout.
The question here isn't about damage but about what mechanisms in the "pain pathway" are responsible for OP's specific experience of this pain. One day he has sudden, debilitating pain - in both wrists - in the absence of a traumatic event. He's conspicuously omitted any kind of medical diagnosis, and the whole thing is part of an existential crisis on the tail end of an insane, psychologically unsustainable workload. Not a typical presentation of RSI, that's for sure.
author here: i definitly agree its a bit of both. but i will say, taking 2 years off work, still hurts if i build furniture or have to hammer something or turn a lot of screws
1. There is a meaningful difference between replacing and assisting. Replacing implies being able to take over the entire function. Technology that assists doctors with one part of their function, or process, can improve their output but is not capable of producing like-for-like output on its own. So the question of whether AI can replace or only assist doctors is very relevant to determining its impact on the role. Power tools didn't replace tradesmen, for example. If AI was able to replace doctors, then your clinic would be able to scale down to 0 rather than 10.
2. If a clinic can use an AI tool to make doctors 10% more productive, doctors become worth more rather than less. Firms are incentivized to hire more rather than less in this scenario. What you're invoking here is the "lump of labor" fallacy. There are market conditions where increasing efficiency really does reduce quantity demanded, but it's not clear that medicine really is one. As far as I can tell, far from there being a fixed lump of medical work, the general population in most of the West is under-serviced and struggles to get reliable, timely, cost-effective access to medical expertise.
Whether or not there is pent-up demand for healthcare, the emergence of AI clinical assistants, like any other form of efficiency increases, effectively expands the supply of healthcare services. In a free market, an increase of supply lowers the price at equilibrium. And as their salaries go lower, fewer people become interested in joining the profession.
We saw this play out in agriculture, in manufacturing, and now it is starting to happen in some services. I do not understand why would we think it will be any different this time around.
In theory, yes. But in practice, at least here in Eastern Europe, there is such a shortage of doctors that even if they became three times more productive, there wouldn't be any meaningful changes in demand.
For example, I haven't had a personal doctor for the past five years because they don't have any free capacity. Last month, I called the doctor twice because my child was sick, and they told me I shouldn't call them so often.
So I think we're a long way from that happening.
>increase of supply lowers the price at equilibrium
The thing you're missing here is that "healthcare services" and "doctor's labor" aren't the same unit. Ceteris paribus, efficiency increases allow the price of healthcare to decrease while the price of doctor's labor increases. The thing that makes this non-contradictory is that a single doctor can now produce "more" healthcare. Economics says the opposite of what you think it does here. Increasing productivity drives expansion in market size, which drives up the ratio of value in the market to its labor inputs which drives up salaries.
Like I said, there might be important real-world reasons why these scenarios won't play out in medicine the way the theory predicts. But so far, you haven't provided any.
Manufacturing has also seen the opposite of what you are saying here. Global manufacturing production value has exploded over the last century, quite literally lifting billions of people out of abject poverty. In particular the last 3 decades of enormous per capita income increases in China have been driven by industrialization. I'm guessing you're taking a US-centric view that is exclusively focused on the local collapse of US manufacturing. This is to do with globalization and free trade, not improvements to labor efficiency.
It definitely can be. The presence of uncontrolled interruptions is a common complaint in open offices. Individual employees tend to manage this issue with noise cancelling headphones. I've also seen eng managers create dedicated periods of focus time or designate a focus room for this reason.
But it doesn't matter either way, because in-person is a different medium to text with a different dynamic. If you'd read the article, you'd see this is directly called out:
> You're trying to be polite by not jumping right into the request, like you would do in person or on the phone. But Chat is neither of those things.
A group message is still chat, but it is a different dynamic to sending out individual messages. Can you honestly say - in good faith - that you don't see the differences between directly and personally addressing someone, versus addressing a group? Try to put yourself in other people's place and imagine how these things might be different.
I also agree with the sibling comment that walking up to a bunch of people working and saying "Hello" with no context then waiting around for a response would be poor etiquette. If you can see that people aren't working - that they are taking a break or already idly chatting - then I would say it's fine. But these are the types of rich context clues that you get from in-person communication that you usually don't get from chat.
Your reply from elsewhere:
> They don't need to poll a channel, most chat applications will pop up a notification when a message appears.
It was you that said the purpose of "hi" was to have them check back. If the notification were sufficient on its own, then you wouldn't need to say "hi" at all. They'll receive a notification once you ask your question either way. The selfishness is in the asymmetry of the interaction. The standalone "hi" is the lowest effort and highest ambiguity way of interrupting someone and asking for their attention.
> What would be the purpose of providing more context before actually asking a question?
So that people have some idea of how important your question is going to be, how long it might take to answer, whether it is relevant to the work they're currently doing and so on. Maybe you see a "hi" in chat and it doesn't matter to you either way. If that's the case, you are probably a minority among technical workers.
What would be "selfish communication" would be to walk up to a group of people working at desks and just say, "Hello," and stand there awkwardly waiting for them to acknowledge you.
Same thing with a group chat. Asking, "Is anyone free to help me with X?" is a reasonable way to ask for help. Sending a whole group of people, "Hello," is a waste of everyone's time.
> At the least, its a communication that you are about to ask them something, i.e. check back here in the next minute or so while I type out my question.
This is part of what makes it such poor etiquette. You've created this ambiguous, open-ended distraction for the other person. You expect them to divert focus away from what they're doing so they can poll the chat channel waiting for you to get your thoughts in order.
At least include some context so they have a better idea of what you're about to ask.
The difference is absolutely not 3 seconds. That's just the lower bound.
In the case that both people are present and available in the chat at the same time, sure, it's 3 seconds. If not, that extra "hi" can add latency of hours or more. Days if schedules and availability line up badly enough.
In the delay introduced by "hi", you've created uncertainty and ambiguity for your counterpart. They have no idea whether your "hi" is the prelude to something trivial, or something important, or whether it might might be relevant to work they were about to start.
"Asking to ask" is far from the biggest communication issue in the workplace, but it is bad etiquette and a very easy behavior to correct - so why not just make the barest effort to adjust the way you communicate to better fit the medium? Save the "Hi"s and "How are you"s for synchronous communication like calls or meetings. Chat has a different set of pleasantries.
IANAL but it's actually not that simple. There are laws and precedents around soundalikes.
I think the cultural defense for this is really lame. Was there really cultural value in evoking "Her"? Because outside of the narcissistic male nerd culture of laughing at your own jokes, and fixating on your own cleverness, there doesn't seem to be. No one outside of this bubble actually thinks it's super cool and culturally valuable for tech companies to attempt reinvent - seemingly without a trace of irony or self-awareness - the cautionary tales and trappings of dystopian sci-fi.
From what I have seen, the demos struck the average person as cringey and left women in particular with a deep sense of revulsion.