azemetre

If Florida is anything to go by, the person responsible for this will run for Governor then Senator while winning both elections.

Saying their arguments are bad but the dog ate your response isn't exactly convincing either.

America has used this same time period to sell out jobs to the lowest bidder, decimate its manufacturing industry to make a quick buck, is willing to sell "critical" tech to "enemies" to make a buck, make billions off of profiting from people's misery.

Why am I suppose to care that people in Africa are pushing for better worker rights and decolonialization? Because the executives as Nestle might make slightly lower money? That big tech can't extract more blood minerals? Boo hoo, it's not like this has ever benefited American citizens writ large.

Also the UN is worthless, if this is suppose to scare people you might lose your hat come election night in 2026.

I'd buy these arguments if America was a place that cared about its citizens and not a country that lets a small group of very elite, very rich, people ruin the lives of tens of millions of Americans subjecting them to poverty to make a buck.

The last war China was involved with was 1979 compared to America, today mind you, that is on the cusp of invading Venezuela because Rubio has a moronic axe to grind.

It's really hard to not see the facade for what it is: rich people are upset that their world order is collapsing.

Frankly who care? Give me universal medicare, universal childcare, and public higher education then maybe, just maybe, I might start to care about all this stuff that only seems to make people lives worse not better.

It's like how the Sackler's did everything they can to make opioids more addictive and increase profit margins, there is virtually no difference between this and Zuckerberg hiring psychologists to make his apps more addictive.

Your link has an invalid cert FYI, but do appreciate the knowledge drop. Rung buffers are some of the cooler data structures out there.

I thought this rule only applied to users commenting with each other, didn't know it applied to posted content too.

Maybe there is a misunderstanding, I'm not saying that the NSA would be buying XSS scripts. I'm saying that if this was 35 years ago the NSA would be buying exploits with common user software. Back then the exploits were "lesser" but there still was a market and not every exploit that was bought was a wonder of software engineering. Nowadays the targeted market is the web and getting exploits on some of the most used sites would be worthy of buying.

Kid was simply born in the wrong era to cash out easy money.

Firefox has <5% of browser share, no one is a normal user of firefox.

I mean if this was the 90s, yes it was true but you are also correct that it's very rare for anyone to be in prison for just marijuana alone in the US. Even in states where it's "illegal."

I don't think it's fair to hold them to the same, or higher standard. at all this is literally a project being maintained by one individual. I'm sure if they were given $5 million in seed money they could probably provide 1000x value for the industry writ large if they could hire a dedicated team for the product like all those other companies with 100,000x the budget.

The book "This Is How They Tell Me the World Ends" by Nicole Perlroth, while it's about the history of cyberweapons it does a very good job detailing the late 90s to early 2010s exploit market.

I don't have it in front of me, but I'm talking about the "nobody but us" era of exploit markets:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOBUS

Where the NSA seemingly was buying anything, even if not worthwhile, as a form of "munitions collection" to be used for the future attacks.

edit: this mostly ended in the US because other nations started paying more, add in more regulations (only a handful companies are allowed to sell these exploits internationally) and software companies starting to do basic security practices (along with ruling out their own bug bounties), it just mostly whimpered away.

Also relevant to the discussion, the book discusses how the public exploit markets are exploitive to the workers themselves (low payouts when state actors would pay more) and there are periods of times where there would be open revolts too (see 2009 "No More Free Bugs" movement, also discussed in the book).

Definitely worth it if you aren't aware of this history, I wasn't.

Back in the day the US government would give you $20k-60k cash in a nice briefcase for this type of exploit. Just another thing big tech has ruined I suppose.

Is it really fair to compare an open source project that desperately wants only $60k a year to hire a dev with companies that have collectively raised over billions of dollars in funding?

Aha! I think I know my contention with this advice now. Who can actually disagree with this? Like I'm saying yes to everything, no one I know would say no to this. Never had a coworker say aloud: "I want to write code to make things worse."

These are the platitudes of our industry that no one disagrees with. Like you said, this is what Blow + Muratori teachings can be distilled into. But there is something worse it also assumes, coming from such people.

Both Blow + Muratori have extremely privilege dev careers that a good ~80% us will never achieve: they have autonomy. The rest of us are merely serfs in someone's fiefdom. Blow has his fief, Muratori his. They can control their fiefs but not the majority of us devs. We don't have autonomy in the direction of the company, we don't control the budgets, we don't even control who we interview or hire.

Assuming that this onus of organizational standards has to be placed on someone with no authority to dictate it isn't just. Also as someone who has consumed content from these two for about a good 8ish years as their videos pop into my feed: I've never see them advocate for workers to be empowered to make their environments better. They mostly just trash on devs that have no authority.

With that mindset I need to seriously decouple myself from these people. Plenty of other devs advocate for the same things in our craft while also advocating for better rights as workers.

They might be referring to another Vercel vulnerability that allowed anyone to bypass their auth with relative ease due to poor engineering practices:

https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-29927

That plus the most recent react one, and you have a culture that does not care for their customers but rather chasing fads to help greedy careers.

I use AI every day and run my own local models, that has nothing to do with seeing sales people acting like sales people or conmen being con artists.

Also add in the fact that big tech has been extremely damaging to western society for the last 20 years, there's really little reason to trust them. Especially since we see how they treat those with different opinions than them (trying to force them out of power, ostracize them publicly, or in some cases straight up poisoning people + giving them cancer).

Not really hard to see how people can be against such actions? Well buckle up bro, come post 2028 expect a massive crackdown and regulations against big tech. It's been boiling for quite a while and there's trillions of dollars to plunder for the public's benefit.

I'm not saying I don't like their attitudes but it's a viewpoint I am struggling with myself.

I'm starting to realize caring about all these minutia of details that don't really matter for my professional goals. I know my software isn't special, caring about pumping out as much performance as possible when I just sling JS professionally feels a tad myopic?

What is the point of it just continues the pattern of procrastination towards the actual goals I want to achieve? Does this also apply to them?

What is the point of espousing all these supposed virtues when the output isn't that special? I mean Braid is still good, but let's not act like greener devs haven't put out good games too without all the jackassery baggage.

Probably a nuanced point in what's the purpose for espousing the virtues of performance if you don't have the output to show it is worth it?

If you want advice about making games would you rather learn from the person that routinely ships games or a person that shipped a game once 10 years ago?

Is that a trade off worth chasing? "Potential perfection" with nothing to show for it?

No because programmers aren't the ones pushing the wares, it's business magnates and sales people. The two core groups software developers should never trust.

Maybe if this LLM craze was being pushed by democratic groups where citizens are allowed to state their objections to such system, where such objections are taken seriously, but what we currently have are business magnates that just want to get richer with no democratic controls.

People are allowed to reject whatever they want, I'm sorry that democracy is failing you to make slightly more money while the rest of society suffers.

I'm glad people are grabbing the reigns of power back from some of the most evil people on the planet.

These people are working on destroying the planet to make more money, they absolutely do not care. Our society isn't set up to punish them, but encourage such behavior to even more extremes (see datacenter build outs causing water shortages, electricity hikes, and cancer in poor communities; nearly every politician capitulating on such actions because they don't know better).

Egghead.io is not worth it, the courses there have a shelf life even shorter than frontendmasters. Authors mostly use it to dump their wares then never update the course afterwards while breaking API changes litter their backlog making most content, unless it was released in the last 3 months, worthless.

Absolutely not worth it since the courses are on par with random youtube tutorials IMO.

Also really dislike the pattern of some popular frontend frameworks selling basic documentation in the form of "courses."

I'm sure if Codeberg had equivalent resources they'd be good, hard to fault a nonprofit for not benefiting from a trillion dollar multinational corporation. What was GitHub's excuse for their failures?

Perfectly good excuse to make society worse for people. Oh wait, what's that? It's not a good excuse? Oh okay.

Well looked at what has always happened in society when young people have no hope for the future: massive societal disruption mostly in the forms of revolution + violence.

Since this isn't the 1800s anymore there won't be any major revolutions but I expect way more societal violence going forward. If you have no hope for the future it's not hard to go to very dark paths quickly, usually through no fault of your own sadly.

Now add how easy it is for malicious actors to get an audience and how LLM tech makes this even easier to do. Nice recipe for a powder keg.

It is absolutely the the role of government to regulate commerce and establish competitive markets (note the lack of the word free here).

I also have zero faith in tech leadership as they have been the major driver of mass misery across humanity. Not only should they be stripped of their positions in their companies, but leadership should be directly given to the workers.

It's the only way to right to the wrong. If it's good enough for executives (voting for other executives, pay packages, and company direction), it's also good enough for workers.

It's not US government's job to help bad business leaders, they should do a better job of running their companies than using them as a slush fund.

This company would have probably flourished if it had workplace democracy but instead it was a centrally planned dictatorship and failed.

Maybe that is the real lesson here.

This looks like a way to force a few key players to gobble up all the federal dollars by forcing many executive controlled agencies to be force fed these LLM solutions because these same key players cannot sell their wares to the public so they need to steal public money, once again.

You should look up something called the "Rehn–Meidner model:"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehn%E2%80%93Meidner_model

Sounds similar to what you're asking for.