> Even if some company were to make a closed source fork, who cares?
They can add sufficiently popular functionality to said closed source fork and make the open source original a) obsolete and b) incompatible with the combined ecosystem, and thus deprive the users of a feasible free option.
If the closed fork functionality is superior enough to make the original de facto obsolete then the users have already collectively decided that the tradeoff is worth it.
And if the original can't compete it means the additional functionality was only going to exist because the financial model of the closed fork could pay for it.
> And if the original can't compete it means the additional functionality was only going to exist because the financial model of the closed fork could pay for it.
This completely disregards the fact that the "financial model of the closed fork" explicitly chose to build upon the permissively licensed original.
If the company chooses to build upon free software, they should be obligated to give back to the community from which they leech. Otherwise, they should just build their own thing from scratch with all the money they've hoarded, and keep it closed.
> If the closed fork functionality is superior enough to make the original de facto obsolete then the users have already collectively decided that the tradeoff is worth it.
Users cannot be trusted to make their own decisions about these kinds of things for the same reason that corporations cannot be trusted to be environmental stewards and children cannot be trusted to select a dinner menu or file taxes.
> If the closed fork functionality is superior enough to make the original de facto obsolete then the users have already collectively decided that the tradeoff is worth it.
I'm afraid you did. Users are lazy, and IE and Java on Windows are great examples.
From the individual incentive standpoint, it's not immediately clear who would make a decision to establish such a pipeline and subject their organization to short-term competitive disadvantage. A CEO of a public company can't really say "our R&D is 2x our peers because we're building a pipeline".
What I suspect is going to happen is something like the regional pilot situation, where one toils for pennies at lower levels and then gets to comfortable compensation numbers 10-15 years later.
I suspect we will continue to have junior developers, albeit the tasks they are tasked with may change.
One big issue is that it is expensive to have senior devs essentially correcting AI slop.
Additionally, at current prompt pricing I suspect a junior dev is a better ROI still.
A more likely result is increased expenditure due to trying to keep up with the AI hype, not a reduced team size.
I have yet to hear of a productive software development shop successfully reducing staff count due to LLM usage.
People don't, organizations do. I spent 25 years employed by large corporations, and for literally anything that claims to improve team morale, productivity, etc. there is always a sufficiently high-level person that once attended the training, reckoned it wasn't a total disaster, and hired the vendor to cater to their team to get a bullet point on the "team building" section of their performance review.
I order a (free, due to my Sip Club subscription) coffee every day, sometimes twice a day. What I really want from the Panera Bread's kiosk is being able to wave my phone next to it, take a cup, fill it, and be on my way -- without having to click through all that nonsense on a greasy screen. Like the author, by now I can probably go through the sequence with my eyes closed, but I do personally consider it one of the most obnoxious UX fails in my daily life.
To me, Python is a great language for anything that needs to be written quickly and executed a few times and/or on a small scale. I'm a C/low-level guy primarily but I write a lot of Python code (probably more than C these days) for various purposes, and none of it is related to statistics or machine learning.
Because you haven't extrapolated from Python's niche. Those domains are derived from Python's accessibility. Python might be the most accessible big boy language.
I'm currently learning Python for my ML/Tensorflow online coirses. I thought bc I know C++ it'd be super easy but theres a lot of differences between them. Turns out an "easier" big boy language still has a bit of a learning curve
I've just read a post on Reddit, in which a middle-aged man with family suddenly realized that his (appropriately aged) daughter watches videos made by middle schoolers and leaves comments like "you are a cute boy". Much to his horror, under his account.
In one of the systems I worked with each ticket had an "assignee" (who did most of the work), a "tech lead" (who knew what's going on and could provide status and guidance), and an "executive owner" (the person you'd escalate to if needed). I suspect those were custom fields and schema could be extended further if desired.
That's how you get individuals who insist that you attach their name to your ticket (or better yet, do it themselves) after they helpfully inform you about an automated test failure in your commit. "Relentlessly mentoring team members on culture of quality" et cetera.
Exactly. If you don’t consider how people might game the system, you are in trouble. Little fixes like this open other possibilities for gamesmanship and now people fight over whether their contribution was good enough to be included in the ticket.
I mean, all of this is gamable by those who want to minmax. But this is a workplace and those kinds of abuses can be solved with a slap on the wrist 80% of the time.
They can add sufficiently popular functionality to said closed source fork and make the open source original a) obsolete and b) incompatible with the combined ecosystem, and thus deprive the users of a feasible free option.