Did you fight for raises? If your manager told you choose 30% to cut would you have? Of course you would, your “caring” meant nothing. Your first loyalty is to the people who decide your paycheck
And as a line level manager I don’t believe you are a “bad person”. Line level managers are “powerless”. You don’t control head count, budgets, company wide decisions to reduce staff etc
I'm on a break after getting run down in my last role at the EM / Director level, but I certainly gave a shit, and some of my directs (10-15%?) gave a shit that I gave a shit, and they're now better leaders. Most of this is from their hard work, but I gave them one possible template: genuinely care about your people. My hope is that what I spent of myself was more than made up with what they added. When you're a naive pessimist, leverage is the key multiplier of effective leadership.
one who expects the worst, yet is continually surprised when they get it. Sometimes secretly an embarrassed optimist.
100%. Saas isn’t going away, but the economics are changing drastically and that’s bad for one-size-fits-all tools, and excellent for niche solutions. But it’s still saas, just more specific.
Businesses don’t want to use dozens of hyper-specific tools from dozens of vendors, if they instead can use a single vendor that can already do 80% of it and can vibe-code them the remaining 20%. I don’t see how this favors niche vendors.
I don’t mean specific features, I mean specific verticals. I.e. one app that nails a specific type of business and replaces a dozen disconnected tools.
Even if you power a typical EV from 100% coal, it pencils out as about equivalent to a late model Prius. And any improvements in the energy mix take it further.
I don't think many people really understand how awful automobile-scale internal combustion engines are at efficiency. The only reason they work at all is thanks to the absurd energy density of the fuels they burn.
The main vulnerability of the Western world isn't technical, it's that we voluntarily surrendered our communication and social fabrics to advertising-driven businesses that will happily host and promote anything as long as it generates engagement. This makes it trivial for foreign agents to sway public opinion where as back in the day influencing media required actual capital and connections.
Unfortunately, a lot of our own people (and especially politicians) make money out of this situation so there's very little incentive to change this. Just look at the reaction every time regulations designed to curtail Big Tech ad-driven monopolies (EU DMA, GDPR, etc) are discussed. Our greed is what makes us vulnerable.
Who is the "we" that you think surrendered control here? Freedom of the press necessitates that anyone can publish freely even if what they publish is foreign propaganda.
I wasn't talking about press, I was talking about how ad-driven social media became effectively the only communication tool and we still refuse to enact/enforce effective regulation to curb its hegemony.
It became the primary communication tool because that is what people chose to use when presented with the alternatives. If you want to force people to use different channels then that is a violation of freedom of the press.
Again I am not talking about press. I am talking about communication tools.
Yes the free market has decided that these tools are the "best" option as long as the negative externalities (such as exposure to malicious actors - foreign or otherwise) are not being priced in. We need adequate regulation to price in such externalities.
For that matter, press and conventional media is subject to many regulations that don't apply to social media. Conventional media wouldn't get away with even a sliver of what social media is allowed to get away with time and time again.
I am still not sure why you keep going on about press. I did not refer to press in my comment and I make no opinion on it here.
I am referring to the fact that back in the day communication used to be mediated by domestic, neutral carriers who got paid to carry communication neutrally regardless of source or content.
Nowadays, communication is primarily mediated by a handful of foreign companies that prioritize advertising revenue at all costs and will choose which media to carry and promote based on expected ad revenue. They are effectively acting as pseudo-press without the checks & balances and oversight that actual press is subject to.
> Please give an example of something social media gets away with that any other media would be punished for.
When’s the last time you saw an obvious scam advertised in a conventional print newspaper or magazine? Now check Facebook or YouTube ads. If such an ad made it through any reputable magazine heads will be rolling and they’d expose themselves to lawsuits, but social media keeps getting a pass.
Now, let’s say you’re a foreign threat actor and want to sway public opinion. You can’t just get in touch with the NYT/etc and ask them nicely. You’d need to buy and cultivate such influence over time and do so covertly because their people would get in trouble if there’s an obvious paper/money trail.
With Facebook? Create a page, make your propaganda video “engaging”, boost it with bot farms for the initial push and then Facebook will happily keep hosting and promoting your propaganda as long as its advertising revenue outweighs the costs of hosting it. That’s orders of magnitude cheaper than buying influence with traditional media.
You have to be joking. Print magazines have always been plastered with shitty scam ads for MLM pyramid schemes, bullshit weight loss treatments, psychic readings, and every other get rich quick scheme and ripoff known to man. And, of course, there were no adblockers. Were you not alive before the internet? You think they weren't full of foreign propaganda too? I'd like to introduce you to my friend AIPAC...
According to Reporters without Frontiers, the US ranks 57th out of 180 countries on press freedom. It's really not the model we should all be aspiring to.
These things are not an inevitable consequence of freedom of the press. Commercially-influenced legislation like the Communications Decency Act, which largely absolves platforms for the content of the material they publish, have pushed us in this direction. One could certainly imagine legislation which puts society's interests first to improve the situation.
The real problem is the almost total capture of the political process by money, which weaponizes the legislative branch against common citizens in the interests of corporate owners.
Being subject to the topic promotion and suppression technologies [1] and bizarre political whims of billionaire media owners is an unusual definition of "freedom."
All media is subject to the whims of its owners. That's freedom of the press. The only other option is that the government tells the owners what they can and can't publish.
Another option is that the government limits the power individuals can have. How many people control, say, 80% of the media? Do you need more than one hand to count them?
How do you define "control" here? Social media, which everyone here is complaining about, is by far the most open and democratic form of mass media that has ever existed.
I’d argue that social media stopped being democratic as it introduced algorithmic content selection. But today perhaps a bigger problem is bot farms shaping public opinion.
Bots don't count as people. They're not represented demographically. They also don't have voting rights. Yet they're spreading propaganda to influence how people vote. So one could argue social media is rather anti democratoc.
Social media, which everyone here is complaining about, is by far the most open and democratic form of mass media that has ever existed.
It would be if it were actually social - if the messages people saw were written by authors those people were interested in because of some kind of social relationship. But of course that's not really the case.
One problem here IMHO is that the meaning of terms like "press" and "media" has shifted significantly with modern Internet trends. Freedom of the press used to be an extension of freedom of speech. The principle was essentially the same but it acknowledged that some speech is organised and published to a wider audience. Neither has ever enjoyed absolute protection in law anywhere that I'm aware of because obviously they can come into conflict with other rights and freedoms we also think are important. But they have been traditionally regarded as the norm in Western society - something to be protected and not to be interfered with lightly.
But with freedom must come responsibility. The traditional press has always had the tabloids and the broadsheets or some similar distinction between highbrow and lowbrow content. But for the most part even the tabloids respected certain standards. What you published might be your spin but you honestly believed the facts in your piece were essentially true. If you made a mistake then you also published a retraction. If someone said they were speaking off the record then you didn't reveal the identity of your source. You didn't disclose things that were prohibited by a court order to protect someone involved in a trial from prejudice or from the trial itself collapsing. Sometimes the press crossed a line and sometimes it paid a very heavy price for it but mostly these "rules" were followed.
In the modern world of social media there are individuals with much larger audiences than any newspaper still in print but who don't necessarily respect those traditional standards at all and who can cause serious harm as a direct result. I don't see why there is any ethical or legal argument for giving them the same latitude that has been given to traditional media if they aren't keeping up their side of the traditional bargain in return. We have long had laws in areas like defamation and national security that do limit the freedom to say unfair or harmful things. Maybe it's time we applied the same standards to wilful misinformation where someone with a large audience makes claims that are clearly and objectively false that then lead to serious harm.
"All over the world, wherever there are capitalists, freedom of the press means freedom to buy up newspapers, to buy writers, to bribe, buy and fake "public opinion" for the benefit of the bourgeoisie." - Vladimir Lenin
Yes, Vladimir Lenin is likely one of the most appropriate people to quote on the question of freedom. Maybe only his successor Joseph Stalin is better in that regard.
I understand this but A) then they should have done it here B) the idea that you can't get CoT x JSON without sacrificing JSON formatting is flat out wrong with ~any 2025 model. (i.e. reasoning models and their APIs specifically enable this)
BeOS was so amazing; I ran it for a while on x86 hardware. Ahead of its time. But I always loved NeXT. (I'd go down to the local university computer store to drool over them. The staff all knew me by name.) And now, I carry one around with me everywhere I go. Living in the future...
I really would love to move to helix but they can be… stubborn about what gets into the core. And if you start having to go to a plugin (which isn’t even possible last I looked) to get table stakes features in, it kind of defeats the purpose of a modern batteries included modal editor. But it’s still a cool thing I’m glad exists.
> but they can be… stubborn about what gets into the core.
Yes, as an onlooker who is similarly cautious about moving to helix, I consider this to be a major risk factor.
I've watched the maintainers waste dozens of hours of contributors' time, and leave the project with no improvement afterwards.
I would actively warn against anyone trying to contribute to the project.
The maintainers simply don't know how to run an open source project, and it's unlikely you will be able to accomplish anything.
It's fine for a project to not accept contributions, and if you don't have the skillset to leverage contributor labor, then it's better to be upfront about it.
That being said, I hope they figure out the plugin system, or someone forks the project to add the missing table stakes features.
> The maintainers simply don't know how to run an open source project
Can you explain why you feel this way? From an outsider’s perspective, Helix seems like an impressive piece of software with a growing community. I don’t see what the maintainers are doing so wrong
Being able to build high quality software alone is a distinct skill from being able to make a group of engineers productive. Neither are soft skills, it comes down to how the software is architected and how well you can produce, understand, and communicate designs with the other collaborators.
I do consider helix to be an impressive piece of software, and I agree that the user base is growing, not necessarily the set of effective maintainers though. The maintainers don't seem to have any aptitude for coordinating engineering effort. That would be fine, if they were honest and direct about it. SQLite is a project which does not accept contributions, I think helix should do the same.
Put differently, I don't expect the large community to have a meaningfully positive effect on the quality of the software, because the maintainers have not demonstrated the competency to effectively utilize that labor. I expect helix to continue slowly improving at whatever rate the maintainers can make important changes themselves.
It’s a ridiculous and inflammatory claim to make about a clearly successful project with an enthusiastic community of users who love it. The maintainers have day jobs and have a clear and narrow vision that they don’t want to mess up by carelessly expanding the pool of maintainers. That is the entire explanation!
This is what killed all the momentum that Elm had at one point. While that's a language and not an entire editor, it does serve as an illustrative example of being far too strict about accepting changes to core.
For projects without funding, there is typically a trade off between a polished coherent product, which means saying no a lot, and a bloated product that has enough maintainer bandwidth to stay around. The second means saying yes to things which may not make the product better, in order for newcomers to feel bought into the project and want to maintain it.
For something like an editor, where whole features can be turned off by default, there's quite a bit of leeway to add bloat and get newcomers to buy in, without actually making the product worse.
For a programming language, a feature in the language has to be used by everyone. So the leadership has to say no a lot to keep the language high quality, and that makes it hard to get newcomers to buy in.
Unfortunately you can't have it both ways without paying people to maintain the project. Elm was good because the leadership said no...often.
It's dead because the leadership said no so often that no one wanted to help maintain it. No one is going to waste their free time working on a project that won't accept their ideas, nor should they.
A language like Go doesn't have this trade off. If the Go leadership rejects a google employee's proposed language change, the employee still has to do maintenance chores as directed to keep their job.
> That being said, I hope they figure out the plugin system, or someone forks the project to add the missing table stakes features.
They decided on an obscure Lisp flavor as the language (instead of WASM), so I don't hold my breath for a powerful plugin system, more like slightly more convenient configuration language.
It’s not even an obscure Lisp flavor. It’s Scheme. You’re getting thrown off by the fact that they need their own embeddable interpreter for it written in Rust.
I actually moved from VS Code to helix and happily used it exclusively for about 4-5 months, at that point I had list list of things I really wanted in my editor. I took that list to neovim and haven’t looked back!
I really hope to be able to use helix again in the future though, there was a speed advantage in helix and less janky window management.
But for me to do that they might have to allow full vim motions as well
Every time I've used Ubuntu their packages have seemed pretty out of date across the board. Is there something extra Neovim is doing here to make that worse?
I think so too, a lot of my friends have told me they had a great experience with helix, but vim keybinds are rooted too deep, and it's also the sunk cost of having built the config over an entire year. But, I think I would give it a try sparingly.
There are a number of reasons I use Helix but one of them is the maintainers’ approach to managing development of the editor and accepting (or not) contributions.
For me, slow and opinionated is a feature, not a bug.
reply