mcdeltat

Maybe we can keep going to a point where it's so ridiculous that people realise the financial markets are the useless money laundering loop that they actually are

Uhh but then what am I going to do with my 7 cars?

B-b-bb-b-bbb-but then how will I have my 3 storey house with a 100 acre backyard, 2 pools, and 14 cars??? Don't you know it's LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE to live without these basics?? What are you, a communist or something??????

No bro you don't understand bro, supply and demand maths said capitalism is the only way forward bro and give me money now

I have learnt that very few in tech hold themselves to a complex moral standard. Most seem to have an attitude like "well company X is offering money, why not take it?" Some seem to genuinely believe large money = large societal value no matter what the job is. Quite blasé and pretty sad.

You can make adjustments on a guitar to make a note flatter by pushing the neck/headstock forward, relaxing the strings slightly

They just know their constitutional rights as law abiding american citizens to die from easily preventable illness they can't afford treatment for!

Just wait until genome sequencing becomes cheap enough...

When someone wants a huge backyard to do nothing with it: valid desire

When I want a commute to work/family/friends that isn't 2 hours: invalid desire

Hmmm

God most of the "discussion" around housing is such copium by obviously-biased people trying to convince everyone that we shouldn't have access to high quality housing. Yes, in the year 2026, despite all of humanity's achievements, it's of course IMPOSSIBLE to configure any type of society such that housing is decent and fair for all. IMPOSSIBLE, did you hear? Nope, it just won't work. Whatever your reason, you're wrong, society is perfect already and we cannot improve.

And the reasons people try to give... Just hilarious to evaluate from a high level. Oh, no we can't have good housing because supply and demand has determined what we have is optimal. Oh actually even if you did adjust supply and demand, it wouldn't fix the issue anyway, so don't try anything. Ah no you can't have more houses because then how will people commute?! Unsolvable! There aren't enough houses in a reasonable distance from urban centres? God well how about you just build a house in the outback where the supermarket is 200km away then! No we can't have more houses because then it will attract <demographic I don't like>. But think of the children - how will they survive without a 10 acre backyard to play in??

It's so disgustingly painfully obvious to any reasonable person that we have no reason to have a housing crisis other than certain people collecting those fat stacks of cash, sweet cash.

This thing is amazing. The kind of nasty extreme optics I love to see. Good stuff! The final images are pretty gorgeous. I'd love to shoot on this thing

The thing is, Lightroom is simply very good at what it does. There are infinite photo editing apps out there and many of them don't fit my workflow.

I want: RAW input, light/tone controls, colour grading, detail controls, lens corrections, basic masking, nondestructive adjustments, library management, and a tone curve that doesn't look like dog shit.

I do NOT want: complex layered editing, paintbrushes, preset styling junk, complex geometric transformations, a million menus, video editing, etc.

The more features you add, the more you detract from the core workflow. And all these other editors have watered down their core workflow too much for me, sadly. Lightroom might be corporate junk but at least it does the basics well and mostly gets out of my way.

Capture One is a new name for though, I might give that a try. It looks pretty promising.

The webpage seems to advertise itself as a Lightroom replacement sort of software?

Which if it is, it better be damn good at it. Adobe may generally suck and Lightroom has many rough edges, but it has streamlined its workflow very well.

This is why I (photographer) haven't switched from Lightroom to an alternative. It's because all the alternatives are targetting different workflows or have a pretty half-assed RAW workflow. We don't need a photo workflow tacked on to something else, we need a proper good workflow made from scratch.

"advanced" in 2026 is closer to "using the app how you want to as rather than the way that will generate the corporation maximum profits"

Ah yes in the second paragraph I definitely meant condemn, thank you.

I recently saw a lecture by neuroscientist Robert Sapolsky [1] which discussed the complexities of human violence. We both condone and don't condone violence all the time, depending on social context. And furthers, our ways of expressing violence are varied (even down to tiny things like the silent treatment). We (along with other animals) have always used aggression to enforce social order and obtain social benefit.

Perhaps something to think about in a scenario like this. Personally I think it's interesting that some people are so quick to condone aggressive attacks on powerful people, yet have no comment on those powerful people committing lower levels of violence against the masses. It's all social context.

[1] https://youtu.be/GRYcSuyLiJk?si=HhnAUKelmR7igO9x

Yeah most of these "issues" are surely caused by programmers trying to be too smart. The dumbest possible solution which messes around with the input at little as possible is almost always the best solution. Which implies the browser-provided elements are the best because they have probably been designed and validated more than you can do.

If I use an app and it fucks around with the cursor: instant hatred. It's just so annoying. And if you can't get basic human interaction done well in 2026, what else is messed up in your app?

Finance is like an oil well. You can do just about anything technology-wise and as long as it more or less pulls the oil from the ground, the money just keeps coming. So good code is not necessary. Some may even say that terrible code that needs to be replaced every year is a feature in terms of promotion possibilities.

A suspiciously upvoted hyperspecific critique of niche features of the project which are not relevant to most users

American discovers basic property of life which their culture purposely rejected in order to be quirky™

((cries in erratic sydney weather))

Ok seems like I don't understand and really dislike chess stalemate/draw rules. So if I make a move which is directly causative to my opponent having no moves which would not result in checkmate, this means the same is a draw?? That makes no sense to me.

Because some people realised that insurance is the ultimate form of security? Why prevent failure when the consequences of failure can simply be offloaded to others?

Range is just shallow odometer: ![3]~*!,3.

Ah of course, of course. Trivially, even. Who are we to question the shallow odometers, really?

Upon every commit, AI will review your code to check if it's worth committing or not (after all, disk space is expensive these days!). If the AI finds the code is not up to scratch, it will be reverted and you'll be given a chance to try again.

Then, we will develop (read: sell) AI agents that will ingest a proposed code change (created by your front-line agent), and iteratively refactor it until the commit agent accepts it.

optimal Nash equilibrium where both offer and demand are balanced

This roughly translates to "optimal utopian society which cannot be criticised in any way" right? Right??

But the free market! How could it be possible that the free market does not result in utopian society??? There MUST be a mistake

No one has ever made a purchasing decision based on how good your code is.

Another perspective: if the quality of your code has no bearing on the quality of the product, then your code/produce clearly isn't doing much useful, and perhaps we could do without it.

Yeah I also keep thinking this. I don't see LLMs reliably producing code that is up to my standards. Granted I have high standards because I do take pride in producing high quality code (in all manner of metrics). A lot of the time the code works, unfortunately only for the most naive, mechanical definition of "works".

I think your argument is predicated on LLM coding tools providing significant benefit when used effectively. Personally I still think the answer is "not really" if you're doing any kind of interesting work that's not mostly boilerplate code writing all day.

Let's raise energy independence by doubling down on oil, a resource we know will be exhausted sometime soon!

This is basically the opposite of what any kind of reasonable long term thinking would argue for.