You make it sound like rocket science or huge bother.

If you're a hacker/dev/tech nerd, that's trivial. You do similar things twice before breakfast without thinking about it.

There's this myth (that came to you in pop culture) that you end up sounding like Tom Waits.

In reality, some phlegm aside, their voice is still the same in any way that matters.

If you knew people who didn't smoke and started (not uncommon in the 80s and 90s, quite a few people I know started smoking in university, or after the stress of a first job, some even later), and also the inverse, you can trivially hear it for yourself.

My voice is exactly the same as before I started smoking heavily, and I have never had any of the associated problems that most people seem to have (lung capacity, stamina, infections, phlegm etc) - pot luck I guess, like most things

LLMs are told what to produce.

"Write me a 500 word post about how AI is great" and such shit.

What such stories would change is worsen the training data, so that we get more of that style of writing (rather than angle).

>- 2 won't use AI at all and simply be left behind and stagnate (or go bust)

Would why would they? As if their software being made faster is the differentiator?

In my career as a consumer (lol), choice was never about that. It was about the business proposition, pricing, quality of implementation, guarantees the company is gonna be there long term, them not being scumbags, and so on.

If anything software churn put me off, especially when it come at the cost of messing with my established use, or stability.

Most products you consume are probably not software. Pretty much all products you consume are created by companies that use software.

If those companies don't keep up with software, they might not have a competitive edge that their competitors who are keeping up gain.

The software-creation-speed is even less of a factor for companies that don't make software/services.

>The thousand flowers died at Google because they had reached a point where opportunities are not everywhere.

It died because Google reached the enshittification penny pinching rent-seeking stage.

He's responsible for the great success of Silicon Graphics, Inc. (SGI)

> and held leadership roles with the Aspen Institute, Vanguard Group, Silicon Graphics, Inc. (SGI), and Stanford University.

nah, that was Forest Basket

How is that relevant to the question of software development expertise?

It was a fun jab - as SGI famously tanked in the late 90s.

But SGI also had quite a lot of software, including their OS (IRIX), imaging and 3D modelling libs and tools, and this little thing called OpenGL.

>decades ago he worked for a company that no one’s heard of

Err, SGI was one of the pillars of the industry.

Apparently not? A pillar is something that is structurally required.

> So decades ago he worked for a company that no one’s heard of,

You must be trolling? SGI is one of the legend companies of Silicon Valley.

Never heard of it. Maybe legendary among people over 50.

Regardless, he apparently was a just a PM there? For a year?

What "walled garden"? The Mac-only apps aside, what's that that you couldn't get on Windows (and most even on Linux), either the same thing, or a zero-switch-cost subscription (it's not like you need to rebuy something to go from Music to Spotify for exampe).

iCloud? You can use Google Drive or Dropbox or whatever MS calls theirs. Apple Music? Pretty sure it plays at both.

Most major apps are cross platform (Adobe, Microsoft and such), or Electron based.

Syncing with your iPhone? You can do that from Windows and Linux as well. Airpods? Work with Android and Windows too.

And so on.

If you're not colorblind, yes. More or less.

Not much sense for the evolutionary machinery to keep the whole backend the same, but diverge in the perception part.

Or Bukowski. Or Lenny Bruce. Or any other number of people "in the trenches".

>Is it "rich people shouldn't express their worldview"

If that was the case, how better off we'd be.

I'm not against rich people outright, but I am against the ones who try to pay people as little as possible sharing their views. And especially the views that contradict (working hard) how they got their wealth (not working hard) in the first place.

How would we be better off?

The greediest bastards with undue influece wouldn't have a say.

They’d still act, just not explain…

Still an improvement, any explanation is a lie anyway!

Much worse.