There is no limit on how far back the clock is allowed to turn.

Things that will be targeted:

* homosexuals (often the first)

* non whites

* interracial marriage

* voting rights

* voting right for women

* women’s suffrage

* education for girls

* no fault divorce

* freedom of speech

* freedom of mobility (like to leave the country)

* trade unions / labor unions

* Freemasons (Oddfellows, etc)

* practicing a religion other than Christianity

* environmental regulations

* public lands, federal parks

* etc etc etc

Look not to China or North Korea for the operating model but East Germany during the Cold War. There was a massive surveillance operation in place then and technology has only improved.

Freedom is not guaranteed and for most of human history was not a goal.

Wonder how far down the agenda slavery appears.

To be fair, that depends on what the poster meant by "to be targeted". The list looks like it implies banning or criminalizing, but again, no one is being banned or criminalized under the legislation we are discussing.

PS. Damn son, you put your LinkedIn out there for everyone to see too? https://www.linkedin.com/in/victor-msu

I read these sentiments, and I honestly don’t understand the tone. This kind of behavior is exactly what you’d expect after taking just a few introductory undergraduate economics courses.

Free markets are predicated on the free movement of capital and labor, and American companies being able to go overseas for cheaper labor is exactly what they're going to do unless there are laws preventing that. When we have laws keeping jobs in one place they get called "regulation."

Generally speaking, I’m really shocked at how uneducated people are — programmers in particular — about how the labor market works, how the economy works, or how anything in the real world works, really.

There's a reason studying humanities is valuable - history, philosophy, economics, etc. It clues you in that when someone wants to exploit you, it's usually based on well-established precedent.

> I read these sentiments, and I honestly don’t understand the tone. This kind of behavior is exactly what you’d expect after taking just a few introductory undergraduate economics courses.

You'll notice I was responding to something I quoted. They claim they're taking action X because of Y, when they're actually taking action X because of Z. Changing Y will do nothing about X. Hence the tone.

Also, the eight most terrifying words in the English language "I just took few introductory undergraduate economics courses..."

> Also, the eight most terrifying words in the English language "I just took few introductory undergraduate economics courses..."

Fair enough, but I at least have a whole degree in it. :)

> Generally speaking, I’m really shocked at how uneducated people are — programmers in particular — about how the labor market works, how the economy works, or how anything in the real world works, really.

You provided zero evidence for any of these sins in the comment you replied to. I'm kind of shocked how economists get shocked out of thin air, it seems they make everything out of thin but highly compressed air.

> There's a reason studying humanities is valuable - history, philosophy, economics, etc.

There's a reason why people avoid these - in their present form, they provide zero practical value and even worse, teaching them amounts mainly to shamanistic incantations designed to confuse and hide the truth -e.g. BS about "talent" when the issue is "cheap labor".

I was pointing out that capital seeking lower wages is a standard economic outcome and my surprise was directed at how often folks in the tech industry seem caught off guard by basic profit-maximizing behavior. That's just what companies do and they are expected to do so.

Regarding the value of studying economics: it provides the exact framework needed to see past corporate PR. When companies claim they are offshoring for "talent," basic economics gives you the analytical tools to quickly recognize that the real motivation is reducing labor costs.

Here’s a free idea I’ve had that I have no idea how to implement. I hope somebody much smarter than me will come along, think it’s a great idea, and steal it. I highly encourage you to do so, and I wish you well.

The idea is to have some kind of substrate—like a superpowered AST—that is the true code: the thing that actually gets compiled and run. Humans never look at this directly. Instead, we look at a representation of this code, and we can toggle between different representations of it.

I’m borrowing ideas from topology in mathematics here: if I look at a shape one way, I should be able to transform it into a different shape, but isomorphically, everything is still the same. That would let me look at the same thing in different ways, understand it from different angles, critique it more easily, and maintain it more easily.

Gemini tell me that this idea has already been tried in the past? Projectional Editing? Intentional Programming?

I really leaned into coding with agents last year, and after some time, it became evident to me that the vision now being pushed -- the "software factory" -- is where things will eventually end up. Building off that understanding, I began thinking about what interfaces would be necessary and useful for managing code and technology at that scale.

I keep coming back to the idea of a video game-like interface for managing all these agents and fleets of agents. Many of the information affordances in video games are reusable in other scenarios. So even though on the surface this project is 'just' a silly and fun enhancement, I think it’s actually a pretty serious contribution as well.

I embrace this new term.

"Vibe coding" is good for describing a certain style of coding with AI.

"Automatic programming" is what I get paid for in my 9-5, things have to work and they have to work correctly. Things I write run in real production with real money at stake. Thus, I behave like an adult and a professional.

Thank you 'antirez for introducing this language.

- the devs all need to get licesnses and specific hardware to develop for IOS

- They spin up their own servers to manage all the finances coming in

- They work on their payment processing solution separate from Apple. And Patreon still pays some fee to apple over the app.

- the model of Patreon only takes 5% off of creators, so that's not enough for Apple. It also wants a cut at the customers of the website who provide services. Customers not beholden to any one platform.\

- And to force them to do that, they are kicking the other processing plan off as an option, leaving only them to work with.

And it's somehow not evil? If I let a friend sleepover at my apartment, is the landlord in the right to demand a day of rent from them too?

This would be an entirely different conversation if Patreon was still allowed to use other payment systems outside of Apple's IAP service. No, this is Apple forbidding competitors on their platform.