Kotlin is a terrible language for learning, as it has a lot syntactic shortcuts that are easy to mistake for magic. I think it's actually easier to learn some Java first, as it's simpler and teaches you the semantics both languages (mostly) share.
Your entire argument hinges on "good enough". Problem is: you can never know if something is "good enough", except in hindsight for those products that succeeded.
I'm upvoting you because your comment is well made, and certainly common, even if it is nothing more than a tautology :)
The bar for "good enough" can be set quite low. In general, consumers can be convinced to buy almost anything. And their resistance to good marketing is very weak.
The problem with presenting good examples is that decades of sustained marketing is hard to overcome even with facts which are immediately obvious. Indeed good marketing has already negated those facts.
For example smoking is objectively terrible and yet was (and is) very popular for decades. Tobacco might be out, but vaping is still cool; same message as before.
From outside its easy to spot US examples because their absurdity is obvious to outsiders. It's harder to see examples in one's own society (because we have our own marketers.)
In software land there is obviously lots and lots of complete rubbish. Most of it gets no marketing at all. But is Windows the best OS? Is Chrome the best browser? Is Google the best search engine? Is Facebook the best social network?
Or do each of those have a competitor with "better code" that has no marketing and gets no traction?
When IBM hooked up with MS was it because of good code? When Sun bought MySql was it for the customer base, and Brand, or the code?
Did Facebook buy WhatsApp for 18 billion because of the code? Fo you think they compared the code to some other messenger with 100 users, or did the 400 million people using WhatsApp matter more?
In truth every product you ever heard of, and ever used, was good enough. Github is full of projects with really great code and no users.
There's a fundamental disconnect between business people and codesmiths. The programmer wants another year to craft perfection. The business needs to start selling and earning next week.
Good code lasts longer, and is better for the company in the long run. Engineers know this. Companies know they have to ship, and sell and earn, to survive at all. Engineers sneer at marketing, the product should be good enough. (Tell that to Amiga.) Marketeers are frustrated by Engineers who want to build forever and never ship. (Any wonder they want to replace us with AI.)
Yes AI products are objectively worse. But if history tells us anything; that doesn't matter.
I think in your StableDiffusion example, a lot more than $600k will have been spend on electricity alone for inference (on those personal computers you mention). So inference is more expensive then training.
> Sanctioning people is basically risk-free and more importantly dollar-free.
In the long term, I think this was actually really expensive. People talk and worry about this, and as a result of this (and similar developments) general consensus seems to have shifted towards preferring EU companies over US companies for tech. That used to be the exact opposite for as long as I can remember.
Who knows what other offers they may have had? Perhaps the company is just worth more to a non-EU company because of the leverage controlling vital infrastructure would give them.
I think a large part of the reason is that government hiring is rather permanent. It's often prohibitively expensive/hard to get rid of underperforming or superfluous employees. Contracting is a way around that. That allows hiring workers in a temporary (project) budget. For decades, sometimes.
The "faster growing economy" is basically 100% AI speculation now. If that gamble pays of the US is still in trouble (as is the rest of the world), as there doesn't appear to be even a hint of a plan of what a post-AI society looks like for anybody but the top 0.1%.
I don't think the top 0.1% has a plan, either. From my personal interactions with them, they are mostly just excited they can talk to a chatbot on their phone all day, and then make questionable decisions from that - to use a recent example, deciding to be their own general contractor and make a house remodel cost an extra million and take an extra year to do.
The money and time to pursue any passion or hobby they wish, or simply travel and enjoy the world's leisures. They can run a small company, never worrying about profits to survive because their interest will keep them afloat.
And instead of delegating or relaxing or honing a talent, they still have this need to pretend they are a craftmen and waste everyone's time, instead of playing Factorio or Stardew Valley or X Simulator like the rest of us plebs do to scratch that itch. What a waste.
It's both maddening, but at the same time, such people are usually more eager to pay asking prices and doing the jobs is easier, so I just do them.
Getting to design a kind of fun home-automation project, actually, since he decided not to just go with a more-expensive all in one system and keeps piecemealing it, and now he can't figure it out, so I'm doing it all.
>The "faster growing economy" is basically 100% AI speculation now.
True, however, the US does more export manufacturing than the EU and at higher profit margins to boot. So even without the AI industry, the US is still in a far stronger place economically than EU.
The EU's massiv offshoring efforts, lack of innovation investments, red tape, environmentalism and high energy prices have left its domestic industry weaker and more vulnerable to foreign competitors and malicious foreign dependencies it can't control since it doesn't have any hard power to use as leverage to protect its industry.
Sure, the EU started to remilitarize and move away from fossil fuels to renewables, but this titanic effort is gonna pay back and maybe restore balance in 5-15 years time, and it remains to be seen if by then its economy will have just fallen further behind, since investors and the world aren't standing still waiting for the EU to catch up with them, but are instead exploiting the EU's current weakness to pull further ahead.
Like Germany's exports are now back to 2006 levels, and its domestic giants like BASF is further downsizing operations in Germany and building a massive 10 billion $ factory in China which is totally not gonna make Germany's policies tied to the whims of the CCP the same way they were tied to Russia's gas. BOSCH just announced 20k more job cuts in Germany and moving abroad till 2030. etc
Remains to be seen if this damage can be undone in the future, as things are currently patched up by massive government spending to cover up the private industry lack of spending, which isn't sustainable and eventually the cracks will get bigger.
I would consider bonds and treasuries a stronger signal than any lack of "post-AI" political vision.
China's security establishment has gone public with the view that their purpose is no longer to find answers to the question 'how do we survive the US?', but instead to something like 'how do we manage the US?'.
In the coming years US power projection is not going to look anything like the stuff we grew up with, that social and military influence just does not exist anymore. Right now, things are pretty good, compared to what they'll be in a year or two. It's likely we'll get a brutal el Niño, fertilizer and lubricant shortages, gnarly energy prices and more, all at the same time. The US is closing down food production at a rate that would keep me up at night if I lived there.
Well, Musk for one is promising not universal basic income, but universal high income. In a country where a lot of people don't even have health insurance. Let's see how that will work out, I'll believe it when I see it...
After the eradication of humanity as we know it, a few survivors can start their own country with a law defining the term high.
I don't believe it when I see it. I call it poppycocks. Because if you do want to argue such, you need to define the path to get there. Without that, it sounds like a pipe dream. Akin to say Leninism.
Another way to look at it is that things just move slowly in government land. The tax office moving towards Microsoft has probably been in preparation for half a decade... And do you really believe the government is technically capable of switching DigiD to a different provider on a (relative) moments notice without causing large scale outages?
We'll start seeing government bodies moving away from US IT suppliers in a couple of years.
The actual question is if (capable) SWEs will choose working for (or be a founder of) Dutch/Euro tech companies over US ones, or even leave the US to live there.
Europe is an excellent value prop if you want to be a bartender or baker. Its decidedly less so if you want to be a white collar/gold collar worker.
I left the US in my 20's to live in Europe and I like raising kids here (I'm now in my 40's) but honestly... it was a stupid thing to do. Meanwhile, my in-laws, who stayed in the US, are now retiring to France in their 40's with a few million dollars.
The opportunity cost of living in Europe is absolutely enormous. You're basically lighting $1-2 million (or more, perhaps) on fire for every decade you're here instead of the US.
Though I don't find myself wanting to move back to California any time soon...
reply