Tag: DHH

Capabilities of Current-Gen “AI”

There are 2 schools of people on Twitter on using AI in programming. One states emphatically that they are producing fully-realized projects through nothing but “vibe coding,” and the other states, well, what DHH says here.

John Carmack had this summary, and he should know.

This put into words my feeling that LLM’s are just another tool — an advanced tool, to be sure — but “just” another tool, like source code managers, diff-er’s, IDE’s, debuggers, and linters. In fact, writing code is the least interesting or important part of creating software to do something non-trivial and useful. It’s the understanding and translating that need into an application that’s the magical part, and it’s my contention that LLM’s will never be able to fill that role. If you can also make the program work well and be fast and look nice, that’s the fun part. Maybe a future version of AI built on a different technology will be able to do these things, but not this version.

The reality of the Danish fairytale

The point is that the Danes understand that they can’t both have a safe, open society where young children can be out alone at night, take the metro by themselves, and enjoy the play parks by themselves, if they also allow druggies, vagrants, beggars, and the mentally ill to roam the streets on their own accord. A strong civil society relies invariably on strong norms that are judiciously enforced by both customs and cops.

Source: The reality of the Danish fairytale

This article provides a counterpoint to the supposed utopia that American liberals like to reference in Denmark, and the compromises to liberty and income it incurs.

X marks the motivated reasoning

 

So forgive me if I can’t even get marginally excited for this latest kerfuffle over the new X branding. Primarily because of just how utterly removed the discourse around it is from a good-faith assessment of the merits of the particulars. It’s all turned into an endless proxy war, and every argument is wielded only in service of yet another petty ideological skirmish.

Source: X marks the motivated reasoning

Basecamp implodes as employees flee company, including senior staff

After a controversial blog post in which CEO Jason Fried outlined Basecamp’s new philosophy that prohibited, among other things, “societal and political discussions” on internal forums, company co-founder David Heinemeier Hansson said the company would offer generous severance packages to anyone who disagreed with the new stance. On Friday, it appears a large number of Basecamp employees are taking Hansson up on his offer: according to The Verge contributing editor Casey Newton’s sources, roughly a third of the company’s 57 employees accepted buyouts today. As of Friday afternoon, 18 people had tweeted they were planning to leave.

Source: Basecamp implodes as employees flee company, including senior staff

This came back up in an HN discussion about their new web app deployment tool, MRSK. (And, being a big fan of Capistrano, I really want to try.) I remember this happening, and I remember the outsized reaction to it. Here’s a tiny company of only 57 employees, and yet this story reverberated around the IT news world. The audacity!

On top of that outsized reaction, what hadn’t really registered was that 18 people jumped ship. A third! An entire third of the company was so upset that they couldn’t espouse their politics on internal forums that they had to leave. It’s been about 2 years now, and they’ve launched an entirely new product, so I guess the predictions of their demise were… probably just wishful thinking.

Reminds me of another controversial company changing gears, and being predicted to fail miserably…

Mosaics of positions

How many people do you think would agree with me on everything I’ve ever written? Nobody, that’s how many.

Source: Mosaics of positions

This is DHH, creator of Ruby on Rails (my favorite programming stack), amongst many other accomplishments. I follow him pretty closely, precisely because I happen to agree with (almost) everything I’ve ever seen him write. I agree with all of his statements in this article. I’m not on Twitter, and have it blocked on my network. The only reason I’d change that right now is because I’d want to follow his tweets. Luckily, he blogs his longer thoughts on a site that has an RSS feed.

Why? Because of this line:

If I end up in a debate with an employee at Basecamp that hits identity bedrock…

That’s such a good phrase: “identity bedrock.” It perfectly encapsulates why controversial topics are so controversial. Like “core memories” in Pixar’s Inside Out, opinions about things such as, say, abortion, or health care, are literally the values we hang our metaphysical existence on. How we find our place in the world around us. How we navigate conflicts. How we ground our thinking in the face of confusion.

When you look at it like that, how could it not be contentious? How could discussing these things not be taken personally?

I think DHH (and Jason Fried) are onto something about making these social issues taboo on internal company communications platforms. This has made one side, in particular, very upset, and this is telling, but not surprising. The social justice warriors have valid points to make, and I actually support most of them, but it’s their collective effort to shove it all down everyone else’s throats — and badger anyone who dares to object to that approach — that has led to Basecamp’s decision to limit internal company discussion about these things. They have only themselves to blame for this turn of events.

FOLLOWUP: It occurs to me that I would bet actual money that the people offended by this are the same people who would have lavished praise on Twitter, Cloudflare, and Amazon for collectively cancelling Parler from the entire internet. Like, not the kind of people; the literal people.