It is not exactly the same because of the personal disruption a firing has on someone, but they are pretty close. I have been laid off once, but it was in a strong job market so I found another position with a significant pay increase within a month. Being laid off right now if far worse because it isn't as easy to find an equivalent position.

When looking at the economy overall, not hiring 30 people is the same as firing 30 people. Both result in 30 less jobs in the market. Considering the US population from age 18-65 is growing very slowly right now, technologies that slow the growth of new jobs could be very beneficial. But a shrinking job market, whether from layoffs or a lack of hiring after employee attrition, would still cause some significant damage to peoples' lives.

You two must be using different terminology, because there is no chance you have gone 10 years without seeing a single gas pump at a gas station down for maintenance. Gas stations around me have about 8 - 16 pumps, and the average gas pump is down for maintenance 2-4 hours per week. That means about 20% of the time at least one pump is down for maintenance on average (not accounting for times when more than one pump is down at a time), which aligns with what I would have guessed if I hadn't googled it (I guessed 25%).

I've always been able to work around this inconvenience. Netflix does this because they were losing business to people sharing their password with their non-paying friends. How would you handle the same situation if you were running Netflix?

My favorite example of this was a mechanical engineering graduate student with a focus on thermodynamics I lived with in college. He bought a large box of FlaVorIce and put it in the freezer expecting them to freeze overnight. I told him they wouldn't freeze quickly if you don't spread them out (like my farmer father taught me as a kid), and he sarcastically stated that a f*ing thermodynamics engineer could figure out how to freeze water. Fast forward to the morning, and the 10 freeze pops I separated from the box were the only ones frozen. The rest of the box was barely even cold.

At the risk of invoking the Death of the Author trope, I don't agree with him here (and I note that he leaves that open too, by saying he personally doesn't want to and not excluding others from wanting to)..

Markdown is now a way doing shorthand formatted typing, effectively. What it's original purpose was is interesting, but not a limitation ('make', for example, was not made for software development but for compiling books). I'm computer-centric, not mobile-centric. A way of formatting bullets and tables without having to move my hands off the keyboard is great for me.

Be interested to see how it handles the round trip - can I take an existing note and edit it using Markdown for instance. But overall - can't see this as anything but a good thing.

The only people who have this kind of stuff are collectors/nostalgia people. They want things to be accurate - that's why go to that trouble.

For a long time I had a Commodore 64 set up ready to go in my rooms, connected to a 1541 snail drive and a C2N cassette. I had a Mac/SE 30 an d a Mac Plus. I had an Atari ST. I enjoyed them all, and I can absolutely appreciate wanting this kind of thing.

For myself I've moved on (played the C64 version of Portal? That was developed on hardware I donated) from physically collecting, although you could argue I've merely transferred the habit to synthesizers instead. But I absolutely recognise and understand the enjoyment people get from this, and it's nice to see this kind of thing being done.

Heard this so, so many times over the last 35 years. 3GL, 4GL, graphical-style (Powerbuilder etc.), object orientiation...so, so many times.

It's a giant string generator, copying from other people's strings. It's a good giant string generator, but that's what it is - another tool in the box. Most of programming is not just the syntax, it's the ideas. "Doing exactly what you want it to do" - hah, most people absolutely cannot specify exactly what they want a thing to do.

Did it start and run more than twice in a row? Well then, it's not an Eleanor clone.

I don't know the history of IoT devices and don't know a good inflection point such as the release of ChatGPT to compare the speed of adoption, but I agree that is a good candidate. My gut says IoT took a lot longer to gain adoption than gen-AI technologies did after December 2022, but I'm not sure how to really compare the two. IoT is certainly more ubiquitous today than ChatGPT is, but that doesn't say anything about how rapid the adoption was. IoT predates Gen-AI by about 25-30 years. It would be like comparing the number of ChatGPT users with the number of Internet users.

I don't agree the level of hype is unprecedented. I'd point to flying cars, nuclear-powered household appliances, virtual reality in the 90s, and cold fusion as a few technologies off the top of my head that had a similar level of ridiculous hype. I'd agree the hype is more widespread this time, but I think that's just because we are further into the information age so most public discourse is more widespread.

Although as for the impact on my life and job, this feels pretty similar to the advent of the PC, Internet, and smartphones. Not quite yet today but AI keeps getting more useful for me every few months. The PC was mostly a toy for a couple decades, the Internet took over a decade to really become essential, and smartphones took about 5-10 years to become ubiquitous. Each time another radically impactful digital technology is introduced its adoption is quicker than the one which preceded it, so it's not surprising the same is true for the current class of AI technologies.

Which of those technologies do you think had the same rapid adoption as recent Gen-AI technologies like ChatGPT? Many of them were released at a time when less than 5% of the world's population had a personal computer, so how could they possibly have the same level of adoption as a technology released when over two-thirds of the world's population has access to the Internet?

A big reason AI is being adopted so quickly is because decades of advances and infrastructure that makes its adoption possible, but that doesn't change its adoption rate. It just explains it.

I wish people would also understand there is no social in social media. It is content created by users for the main objective to make money and push public opinion. People would treat it a lot differently if they got to see all the metrics the algorithms decide when they suggest something. "engagement", "controversial", etc would take the human face of it. Buy social media and AI try and put a human face on how they work to specifically mask that.

this is why AI cannot just state "I don't know", when it does have a good answer for something. It has not idea what a good answer it, just this is most likely what they user wants.

I mean - I was there. People were on dial-up. Fast display of the page was the thing people liked. SEO didn't even really exist as a concept at that point, and the whole PageRank thing was later and quickly dropped. At the time it launched and started getting sway, Google's results were different-but-fine. It progressed quickly to better, but by that point people had mostly moved.

People have forgotten and bought into the legend. Google won because it was a white page with a search box. Alta Vista had gone for the 90s portal fad, and people didn't want that.

Later revisions of Google may or may not have been better, but certainly the "gained sway" bit was because it was faster and not laden with stuff you didn't care about.