you comment did no such thing, in a way that would be recognizable by anyone else. it probably would have been a good comment if you did expand on that though, in some meaningful way.
I use ai daily but reciting the talking points that killed what open source used to mean and using them to further separate original authors from the impact of their work
That’s ai pilled
I write code under the mit license
I know the risk
Helping humans still makes it worth it
And technically these AI companies should have a /licenses route that lists every MIT piece of code their model was trained on.
That’s literally the only expectation I have from anyone as an active author using the MIT license, getting cited.
I think the legal AI defense is that the models themselves are a bastardized form of dynamic linking. I say the models are statically linked though, so they need to spill their sources.
That’d be my question to the person I disrespected:
Why should I, as someone that’s not hypothetically giving back in code, continue to do so, when the social contract has been broken, where the always minimal expectation has been: Say my name?
I literally came up with a unique sdk for all “my elves” such that I can in fact see people in court for mishandling the software supply chain.
There’s a lot of software licensing misinformation out there and including my name and email with the rest of the license text is such a simple thing to misunderstand.
I’m sorry for any and all infractions you’ve committed across all MIT authors to date.
I’m not really planning to take anyone to court, but if you really believe what you’ve said to me here and you’ve been writing code that follows those beliefs
I’m not a lawyer, but you should probably consult a lawyer.
That’s about the inputs going in and even in the first paragraph disclaims other courts may side differently
We’re still not in the legal territory of the outputs on the other side, which is what’s actually more interesting to me.
The technical political maneuvering of to two sides of the accelerationist movement is the fair use bits, which is not even the point I’m debating.
Even there, they are discussing complete bodies of work as source material, which is exactly my point. My stuff can go in, but they still have to cite that I’m in there, which does matter on the other side.
I don’t think anyone deserves to be just weights and algorithms in a dark and shuddered library.
They want this to be a legal laundering device and that’s the bit I’m hung up on.
I literally re-wrote how I wrote software post-ai to ai pill the ai, such that, when these models produce ASTs that match my signature, I do have a legal defense.
I’ve been CSS since the mid 2000s and I have a lot of it memorized by heart.
My team uses tailwind, therefore I use tailwind
But I don’t want to reconfigure my mental model to think in esoteric shorthand, when I already have vanilla web tech memorized.
So I just write some code to match the design and then I let an llm transform it into what my team expects.
I’m sharing in the hopes that the tailwind team can figure out a middle ground because I think a service that can take any valid styled content and output the same result in tailwind would be a niche small language model that solves the use case for why I don’t go to the docs.
The shorthand makes inline style more ergonomic, so you can see the wood for the trees, rather than long strings of style attributes in your markup.
Inline style is the thing. That's what tailwind is enabling in a readable way. And inlined style is what makes style more maintainable and less susceptible to override rot.
The separation between form and function is always a bit illusionary, but particularly so with CSS. Almost all markup is written to look a specific way, not a configurable way.
CSS modules is the native solution. But yes, compile-time CSS in TypeScript like PandaCSS or Vanilla Extract or StyleX (not run-time like Emotion) are also great alternatives.
For what its worth, I had the same experience with Tailwind. I regularly see classes that don't have an meaningful outcome.
I don't think the problem is Tailwind or CSS (well, I guess Tailwind is CSS with extra steps but you get the idea) syntax (or any of the CSS preprocessors), but the fact that styling in browsers has accumulated a lot of cruft, and people who haven't "grown up" with it over the years don't fully understand it (I am more competent than most with it and there's still times I screw up).
One thing that's kinda nice about Tailwind is that it made copy-pasting components easier. So people can get something decent without fully understanding what's happening
I mean stuff like adding `display: block` on the parent and `flex: 1` on a child element. Clearly a copy-pasting leftover because someone or whatnot, but then you're debugging a layout issue and you're wondering "but why is this here"
Yeah, I’m not advocating for css or against tailwind
Just sharing that the root cause is most developers don’t want to pick up an additional syntax when they already have the fundamentals
The main problem is the premise of tailwind
Every single web design on earth is a compound opinion on like a few hundred popular properties and values
They put all that in one style sheet
Which became the one style sheet on earth
Which made it possible to summon all those styles directly from within our apps
Tailwind is like the chess of utilities. There’s only so many opening and closing moves that running a business on it is incredibly difficult, given supply and demand.
>Just sharing that the root cause is most developers don’t want to pick up an additional syntax when they already have the fundamentals
IF they already have the fundamentals. What I see is that more and more developers don't know CSS at all or very little; they only use Tailwind and haven’t worked with CSS extensively before.
Honestly, super impressed that that they’ve got the traction they do without it but, I think the takeaway is that Java developers like having everything in the IDE— so I’d imagine agentic in the ide will yield higher returns than switching modalities
There is already a lot of Java in agentic systems and IDE integrations — but that alone won’t break the stereotype.
The real blocker isn’t capability, it’s perception: many people stop before even trying Java in the terminal. All while Python/JS are seeing a surge in terminal tooling, despite similar (or worse) startup cost, dependency sprawl, and multi-GB installs — and the reaction there is often “this is fine, let’s ship and use.”
Until Java is visibly normal in the terminal, agentic features in IDEs won’t change that mental model.
The managerial class found my LinkedIn findings irritating
I just got a job recently after getting laid off three years ago
I spent a lot of time in the San Francisco Bay Area talking to people
That data is simple:
100% of the people excited about the prospects of AI are currently employed.
And even then, I do sense a wavering in the voice where they’re making sure to tell their manager that they use ai just enough to not need to be replaced by a different person or the machine they’re training.
Kurt Vonnegut’s Player Piano was written for this current moment
It’s almost like Microsoft sells security products and runs the most insecure JavaScript package manager to build those security products and couldn’t switch off of it even if the engineers in the org recommended a more secure JavaScript execution context— and that’s realistically why anthropic bought an engine.
> Ai promises to eliminate labor, so businesses correctly identify AI risks as free debt.
These aren't promises, they're just hopes and dreams. Unless these businesses happen to be signing contracts with AI providers to replace their labor in a few years, they're incorrectly identifying AI risks as free debt.
I absolutely agree with you and I’m hyperbolizing to highlight exactly how incorrect that “promise” is
Realistically, the execs see it as either them or their subordinates and the idea of a captain dying with a ship is not regarded as noble amongst themselves. So they’ll sacrifice the crew, if only for one more singular day at sea.
You deserve to be recognized beyond the false religion of the singularity.
reply