I think you might be overestimating how liberal the protesters were. Source: I was in Tahrir square during the protests and spoke with many Egyptians.
Almost all of the complaints I heard while I was in Egypt were about corruption and lack of opportunity. It was more frustration with rampant nepotism/cronyism and less a desire for liberalism. From the ground, it appeared to be driven by economic forces and not political ideology.
In fact, many Egyptian men that I spoke to made the argument for the continued oppression of women (e.g. the full burqa and absence from work). In general, the populace was decidedly anti-liberal.
The election of the Muslim Brotherhood happened after I left the country, but it was no surprise to me at all. The fact that they attempted to change the constitution so quickly after their victory was unwise, and the subsequent coup by the West was just as unsurprising.
I have a feeling that people in the West have assumptions about democracy being better for the society based on their own education levels and social advancement. Democracy is better if the general population have cultural affinity towards fairness, equality and respect for other religions. Democracy does not mean fairness, human values or such high moral standards that general people in the West assume. Democracy is just the will of the people. If they are uneducated, racists and supremacists, the elected government would represent that.
If I was OpenAI / Anthropic, I would see this as a massive opportunity.
I mean, why wouldn't you want to consolidate git repos, a heroku/fly.io/vercel like container system and direct access to web-based coding tools. They have the coding models and agents, slap a web interface over Claude Code running in a container, allow for commits and deploys. Control the entire stack.
As others have noted, this is avoidant behavior, not anti-social.
Worth taking a look at the Wikipedia for Attachment styles [1]. The two types are Dismissive-Avoidant and Fearful-Avoidant. Either can be superficially mistaken for anti-social, although Dismissive-avoidant tends to present a bit closer to anti-social.
I would argue it depends on the context. Of course, gaining enough experience on which contexts are worth persevering for which duration is it's own thing.
The rubric I give to juniors is a bit more simple: if you get stuck, consider alternatives that you haven't tried out. Alternatives are of a few types including: relevant evidence/facts you can gather that you haven't yet gathered, and attempts you haven't tried yet. As long as you have alternatives keep trying them (gather evidence, make attempts). Once you run out of alternatives then seek help (avoid spinning wheels).
This way when a junior comes to me I can ask them to list the alternatives they have already tried. If they haven't tried obvious alternatives (gathered facts and reasonable attempts) I send them back. If they've tried all the alternatives I can think of then I get involved.
I'll note that this tends to work when contact between team members is relatively frequent (e.g. once a day) so I can get a sense of how long the junior has been working on a task to avoid rabbit-holing.
I think with regards to new hires, go for the quick question up front every time. Onboarding people fast is an investment with high-ROI.
It's a really bad sign if someone keeps asking thirty second questions three or six months into the job and hasn't figured out how to answer those themselves yet.
It's a really bad sign if they keep asking you the same questions.
But when someone's new? It's your job to help them get up to speed. A thirty second question is probably something like "is there a reason we use Azure instead of AWS" or "do you want me to use library A or B, I see both in the codebase," not something that they'll benefit from diving into for three days.
A saying I've come across is: "Don't let perfect be the enemy of good"
I had a coworker who would always be diplomatic about code changes he felt could be improved but when he felt he was nitpicking, where he would say: It's better than it was. It allowed him to provide criticism while also giving permission to go ahead even if there were minor things that weren't perfect. I strongly endorse this kind of attitude.
It's worth noting that this is a kind of different "nit" than something that might be attached to a line of code. Like, someone might "nit" using a bunch of if statements where a switch statement might work, or if someone uses a `for each` where a `thing.map` would do.
What I am describing would be something higher level, more like a comment on approach, or an observation that there is some high-level redundancy or opportunity for refactor. Something like "in an ideal world we would offload some of this to an external cache server instead of an in-memory store but this is better than hitting the DB on every request".
That kind of observation may come up in top-level comment on a code review, but it might also come up in a tech review long before a line of code has been written. It is about extending that attitude to all aspects of dev.
I had someone reject my code that improved/regularized half a dozen instances of a domain object we had, where they were showing up in code paths I cared about. He said there’s dozens of these, don’t submit this unless you fix them all.
I had something similar but convinced the other person the rest of the work can be done later. Then the person went ahead and did it despite the other instances having no use/value. Go figure. I guess having consistency has some value to argue the other side. I tend to be extremely flexible in terms of allowing different ways of doing things but some seem to confuse form with function insisting on some "perfection" in the details. I think this is partly why we get these very mixed reactions to AI where LLMs aren't quite "right" (despite often producing code that functions as well as human written code).
Consistency reduces the mental cost of acquiring and maintaining an understanding of a system. In a real sense, moving from one approach to two different approaches, even if one of them is slightly better than the original one, can be a downgrade.
Like many other things it's a judgement call. The break down occurs when people replace judgement with rules or "religion". This tends to happen when they don't have the experience of seeing the long term impact of decisions in various contexts.
In a way, simplifying the judgement call to the black-and-white approach “either you change all instances or none” without considering nuance is also a way of managing the mental overhead. Making a simple call lets you spend all your nuance energy in areas where it might matter more.
I agree that it’s also a way of accumulating technical debt, it’s all a bit of a tradeoff.
But then you end up with nit inflation, people feel like they need to fix the nits, and do, and there's no meaning to nit any more. I try to just not comment unless I feel there is some learning from the nit.
I have a crippling guilt about not keeping my apartment as spotlessly clean as my parents did theirs, to the point that I end up procrastinating, which just makes it worse.
The trick to overcoming this is not to aim for "clean" but for "cleaner than before".
Just keep chipping away at it, whether it is a messy codebase or a messy kitchen.
I use it for cleaning all the time. Whenever I have dishes, I always give myself permission to do as little as I want knowing that one clean dish is better than nothing. Most often I end up doing them all.
The other saying I say is "completion not perfection". That helps me in yard work especially. I'm not going for the cover shot of "Better Homes and Gardens", I just need the lawn to be cut.
As an aside, I've noticed an uptick in the amount of YouTube ads for music artists and their live shows. The amount of faux-organic hype being generated feels like it has increased recently, with those same artists who I have never heard of showing up on podcasts. It feels like a new era of payola.
I've been critical of Cook at times because I feel his vision was a business vision more than the kind of futurism I felt from Jobs. Cook was the ultimate bean counter, hyper-optimizing Apple from a financial and operational perspective. I felt like he took less risks and was mostly squeezing every single advantage that Apple had to its limit.
But I cannot argue with the results the man achieved. Especially the transition to A-series and then M-series chips has been an incredible success. Perhaps the biggest flop was the Apple Vision Pro, but it is hard to really call him out on that since it wasn't that Apple lost a battle, it was that the product category just hasn't caught on (yet). Siri is another place where Apple has lagged but they could very easily catch up with the massive interest in local AI on the mac minis.
I think it will be difficult to look back on his legacy without giving him a large share of credit for Apple's continued success.
Moving to Apple Silicon perfectly suited Tim Cook’s skill set and is a great foundation for the company’s future. He played to his strengths in a way that genuinely brought huge benefits to the consumer.
Now I think we need to see Apple remake categories the way they did under Steve. If that can happen again, the future is bright.
Strategic competence and playing to your strengths is ok to me. Avoiding lots of bad decisions can sometimes be just as good as making some really good decisions.
Gosh I just read a really hellish thread on what frontier LLMs will become as they're infected with advertising, I hope apple manages to break locsl LLMs (and training?) Into the public discourse
The Vision Pro's failings are IMHO not software or hardware related but a poorly executed platform strategy for content. Apple's reflex to build walled gardens has crippled the effort. And it's not the first time. Their Apple TV strategy was held back for years as well. Great hardware. Very cheap. You can plug it into any TV. It's not a bad game console even. But it lacked games. And streaming TV channels. And for a long time also streaming content. Apple fixed that eventually but Apple TV remains a distant competitor to more main stream platforms such as Netflix, which works on just about anything. Just like Youtube, Hulu, Amazon Prime, HBO, Disney, and all the rest. Apple TV at this point is an also ran that apparently is barely profitable. A few nice TV series but very much a niche player. The Apple TV hardware is more or less irrelevant at this point. And despite the name, Apple never made a TV or much of a dent into conquering the living room.
Macs are great for gaming in terms of hardware. But other gaming platforms dominate the market. And Apple's walled garden approach is so effective that Steam's proton doesn't work on its platforms (so far). And its attempt to convince game developers to use Apple specific SDKs like Metal and build platforms are not really making any dent in the overall gaming market, which now eclipses Hollywood in terms of revenue and budgets. From a developer point of view it remains a highly crippled platform. And the Apple tax isn't helping.
Seen against this background, the Vision Pro is a strategic content failure. Very few 3D games work on it. Very little new 3D content is developed for it. Apple's insistence on our way or the highway continues to have developers preferring the highway. There are a few decades worth of back catalog of VR games, 3D movies, etc. Most of which flat out won't work on the Vision Pro or aren't licensed for it. They could fix that but that would require investing in content/licensing deals, compatibility/emulation, etc. And by making the core product so expensive, it basically became a niche product. And without content that remains a hard sell. It does not make sense for productions with hundreds of millions of budget (i.e. most 3D games and movies) to be targeting such a niche platform. And it does not make sense for end users to buy the product if there is no good content and if most of the good content is never released for it.
It's a very fixable problem. Valve is leading the way with Proton currently. That strategy is very portable to macs and the Vision pro. There is very little technical reason to stop that from working. And Apple has been chipping away at their own portability kit. But they are so far not really committing to it fully. They should be filling the Apple store with decades worth of great content that just works on Apple HW. As it is there is only a relatively small collection of old content that has been ported.
Re: Apple TV (the studios and the content)... it is a bit of mystery: it's very worthy and good - arguably one of Tim Cook's finest achievements - but not a runaway success in a very competitive post-TV market. Steve Jobs shepherded Pixar into the world, and I'm sure he'd consider Apple TV (again the content arm) a comparable achievement.
Steve Jobs called the original Apple TV a "hobby", and, similarly for now there isn't any pressure for it to massively grow.
I don't watch much of it but I do think Apple TV could end up a big winner in the TV wars. The shows they put out are quality and you know they are going to be renewed unlike a Netflix. It seems the strategy is to go for HBO's old position as the king of quality but that is built over decades.
I wonder what Apple TV would look like if they didn’t have Ted Lasso to put out during peak Covid. That’s really their only large mainstream success and in my estimation that success was largely a product of circumstance.
I love their SciFi material but two seasons of severance in three years won’t keep people subscribed. The only reason I have Apple TV for more than a month or two out of the year is due to the bundle plan math working out with family sharing.
I’ve seen most of those. Slow horses is phenomenal no notes. for all mankind would be as well if not for the low grade melodrama of the middle seasons, but all the space stuff is amazing. silo is good fun but like severance we’ve gotten two short seasons in how many years? shrinking started out great but did a speedrun in one season of what normally takes jenji kohan three. Foundation has decent highs especially with the dynasty and invictus in season two, but the lows are loooww. And of course severance might even be a masterpiece.
But my point wasn’t that they don’t make good television because they do, it’s that their shows aren’t talked about nearly as much in the mainstream because people don’t have Apple tv. I think Ted lasso and to a lesser degree severance are really their only major popular hits. Most people I talk to haven’t seen slow horses. If it were on Netflix they would have.
And I’m just left to wonder where Apple TV would be now if Ted lasso hadn’t been a massive breakout success for the platform, which i think largely only happened because it was a decent feel good show that came out right when the entire world was miserable and cooped up inside looking for new content.
It’s not the “walled garden” that’s preventing Valve to write Proton for Mac, it’s the lack of Vulcan support. Apple pushed to its own Metal framework when they deprecated OpenGl, which is probably great for performance, but outright denying support for Vulkan was a killer blow for games.
Which they could choose to fix but didn't because they are treating it as a walled garden. Which is the same reason they removed the OpenGL support and declined to update/modernize that implementation. As reverse engineering efforts for asahi linux have shown, implementing Vulkan is perfectly possible and apparently runs with pretty decent performance. And as Apple's own efforts with the game porting kit show, supporting DirectX is also not an impossibility and there are some examples of ported games in the Apple store.
Apple religiously defends its walled gardens. Stuff like this is the exact symptom. They don't allow third parties to "fix" this either. They don't really document their own hardware and treat it as a control point. They also don't support independent efforts to port other operating systems on mac hardware.
There is some good analysis here, but your argument about the Vision Pro being a content failure doesn't hit for me. It isn't just Apple that has failed in this space, we have Meta, Valve, HTC and a few others who have all had pretty lack-luster results. VR as a product category just doesn't seem to have caught on.
You can release a phone with desktop-strength hardware running Ubuntu Touch and people will wouldn't buy it to play games because exceedingly few games are made for it
Software support is vital here, you can't just say that if the hardware is good then people would buy it. What good is it if you can't use it?
I often question my own bias on this because in my interactions with local non-tech people, the adoption of AI has pretty much affected everyone I know and it is by my estimation a majority positive reaction. I live in a fairly rural part of the PNW.
So when I read "People hate what AI is doing to our world." it honestly feels like either I am completely deluded or the author is. It feels like a high school bully saying "No one here likes you" to try to gaslight his victim.
I mean, obviously there are many vocal opponents to AI, I see them on social media including here on HN. And I hear some trepidation in person as well. But almost everyone I know, from trades-people to teachers, are adopting AI in some capacity and report positive uses and interactions.
The bulk of the anti-AI sentiment I see is from people who spend a huge amount of time online (or on HN). Not regular folks.
Most people don't care if something is written by an AI as long as it is reasonable, and reflects the intent of the human who prompted the AI.
If consuming material online (videos, web sites, online forums) is not something you do a lot of, you're relatively unimpacted by LLMs (well, except the whole jobs situation...).
Given all the borderline apocalyptic articles how students are using it to cheat and teachers have no way to stop them, I'd be honestly surprised by that.
All I can offer is my anecdotal experience. One teacher was describing his usage to generate quizzes on material. He gets course material in the form of pdfs, uploads it to the AI and gets it to generate questions.
On the flip side, one of my other teacher friends has instituted a no phone policy in his classroom.
Yeah, a friend of mine is a teacher and is using it to generate material for the classroom all the time, and it dramatically increases her productivity. The school administrators have also been pretty impressed by it, and told her to keep it up more or less.
There was an article about a year ago concerning the students' using AI to complete work, and teachers using AI tools to detect if AI tools were being used to complete the work, so (even a year ago) you found this absurd scenario where it was just robots checking the work of other robots. Did a quick search for said article but couldn't find it. Anyway, humorous. Coupled with the WaPo article today about people "speed-running" their degrees, it's wacky, wacky world for "education". https://archive.is/bPi82
It's easy to chalk it up to "fear of the unknown", when in reality it's both good and bad depending on who's wielding it. It can be used to tear down or build up, solve problem or create problems just like every advance before it. So while I'm generally excited with where it can go, I guess I don't mind being reminded there can be downsides.
That is why I question my own bias. One possible explanation is that I am AI positive. So when people test out "What do you think about AI?" my own responses are generally positive. That probably filters out people who don't want to argue or contradict.
This kind of effect would work both ways. People who are non-confrontational in general will choose to keep quiet if their opinions differ. In this view, both pro-AI and anti-AI sides might find themselves having their bias confirmed due to opposing views self-silencing to avoid conflict.
Anecdotally, I was just there and ran into a couple of anti-AI people and it's not like I was bringing it up. All I got was they were worried about the water and the heat produced. I wonder if someone has done an analysis of old-search vs AI-search, I most definitely get the info quicker that I want with AI, does that make up for the LLM cost, I have no idea.
I'd say that the molotov cocktails being thrown at the house of an AI company CEO being met with mostly praise and a little bit of apathy is a good hint you might actually be in a bubble
I don't agree, in fact I would say if I was surrounded by people glorifying violence that would suggest I was in an extreme minority.
It reminds me of similar late-stage-capitalism like activity, from the assassination of the insurance company CEO, the fire-bombing of Tesla's, etc. It is hard to disentangle hate that is based on economic inequality or power imbalance from hate directed explicitly at AI. That is especially true since one narrative suggests that both types of inequality (economic and power) may be accelerated by an unequal distribution of access to AI.
So we might end up in an argument over whether the hate that drives the violence is towards AI at all, or if that is merely a symptom of existing anti-capitalist sentiment that is on the rise.
As an aside, I built a tool to manage my own chat interface over the provider APIs. I added caching because the savings are quite significant and I have a little countdown timer that shows me how much time remaining until the cache is expired.
However, for the basic turn-based conversation the cache (at 5 minutes) is almost always insufficient. By the time I read the LLM response, consider my next question, write it out, etc. I frequently miss the cache.
I imagine it is much more useful if you have a tool that has a common prefix (like a system instruction, tool specs or common set of context across many users).
If you can get it to work frequently enough the savings are quite worth it.
Interesting idea. I suppose one could also have response settings (e.g. max response tokens) to ensure the model doesn't waffle on and run up costs. In a best-case scenario "ping" would be one or two input tokens and a "pong" response would be one or two output tokens, so the cost of the operation would be the preserved context size times the cache read cost (one could avoid doing a cache write since I believe the cache read would reset the platforms cache timer).
It would be interesting to graph the cost/savings of this approach based on context length, percent cached, etc.
The UI for this is a bit tricky, I could mark conversations as "active" and then do the ping/pong dance on only active conversations and up to some determined max cached (e.g. 1 hour).
I learned this way myself without being told. I was gifted a nearly ruined classical guitar that my mom took to a music shop and a guy got into working condition for $20. I then listened to every record, cassette and CD in our house looking for any guitar I could hear, especially individual notes, and learned dozens of songs.
It is painstaking and tedious, but it works. I look back on that time, the first few years I played, and I am genuinely surprised at some of the difficult songs I worked through in this way.
But now, over 30 years later and still playing regularly, I almost never do a note-for-note transcription of other peoples playing. I tend to either just get the gist of the harmony and melody by listening and get into the general ballpark. I often use ultimate guitar or other tab sites just for an outline of the chords (or download sheets from real books for jazz).
But my aim is always to fully memorize a piece, from beginning to end, so I can play it without any reference. That, for me, is the goal. Any way I get there (tabs, sheets, ear, demonstration, etc.) works fine in my books.
Almost all of the complaints I heard while I was in Egypt were about corruption and lack of opportunity. It was more frustration with rampant nepotism/cronyism and less a desire for liberalism. From the ground, it appeared to be driven by economic forces and not political ideology.
In fact, many Egyptian men that I spoke to made the argument for the continued oppression of women (e.g. the full burqa and absence from work). In general, the populace was decidedly anti-liberal.
The election of the Muslim Brotherhood happened after I left the country, but it was no surprise to me at all. The fact that they attempted to change the constitution so quickly after their victory was unwise, and the subsequent coup by the West was just as unsurprising.
reply