Yeah, what could go wrong with screwing with the neurochemical reward system of the entire population. Surely that will have no unintended side effects. It's literally a free lunch!
what could go wrong with screwing with the neurochemical reward system of the entire population
We already know what can go wrong.
We already did that decades and decades ago. Sugar, for example. Aside from so many foods being laced with it, you can now simply walk into a store and buy a kilogram of sugar and eat it. So many other examples. That ship sailed a long long time ago. All we can do now is nudge the dial the other way.
He's saying we already have completely fucked our reward system.
That's why 75%+ of American are literally eating themselves to death. And they can't stop. And no, "discipline" isn't a solution.
If anything, I'd say Ozempic brings our reward systems to be more in line with modern reality. Monkey brain doesn't work when you have the unhealthiest food available constantly at your finger tips.
Regardless of your stance on anything, it should be obvious we have a HUGE problem. I'm sorry, but a "do nothing and hope it works" approach is now off the table. We need real, tangible solutions. Not moral grandstanding.
I imagine initial computer use models will be kind of like untrained or unskilled computer users today (for example, some kids and grandparents). They'll do their best but will inevitably be easy to trick into clicking unscrupulous links and UI elements.
Will an AI model be able to correctly choose between a giant green "DOWNLOAD NOW!" advertisement/virus button and a smaller link to the actual desired file?
It's not progress. Every organization has "load bearing" employees that do the brunt of the real work, and everyone else just creates a cloud of confusion about what they actually do and why it's important. Most people are doing fake work. But unfortunately "fake work" jobs are the only way to fight back about the ever-optimizing, ever-extracting process of the free market. My job is needed because fuck you, I'm not going to be homeless. It's all a big game.
And with women, employers still haven't figured out how to afford women time for traditional responsibilities, like caring for their children, while still providing them with "equitable" workplace opportunities, while not being unfair to everyone else. Likely because it's just not possible. If I don't have kids and grind harder than women who take time to raise kids, why should we have equal opportunities? Makes you wonder if traditional gender roles were onto something. Yes we can do the same things, but no it is not wise to do so on a societal level.
It's all well and good to pretend that this is the case, but it isn't. Most jobs involve some obvious measure of progress. Especially under the umbrella of "service." Women disproportionately choose these jobs: nurses, servers, etc. Women are more educated, hell the last time I went to the doctor there was a resident, a nurse, and a doctor, all three where women.
There could be some jobs where it's hard to measure progress, like quality assurance, but these jobs have been looked at with ire by management for so long it's an old wives tale at this point.
What is likely more true, is that productivity varies between employees somewhat, and perhaps there are 2x employees. But, measuring relative productivity is much, much harder.
As someone who has done fake work knowingly, what do you say to me? That I was actually providing real progress, just that it was difficult to measure, and I am fooling myself? No, it was fake work, and I've seen many peers do the same over the years.
I would say your experience is your own but I am unable to judge the "usefulness" of it without specifics, and that is a subjective thing. What you might have decided is useless I might decide otherwise. What can be said for sure is the person paying you either thought it was useful or didn't care
You’ve slipped from “equitable opportunities” to “equal opportunities” - they aren’t the same thing, and we run the risk of setting up a strawman if we’re doing so.
No one who’s advocating for employees with children with benefits like subsidized childcare, flexible schedules for driving children to and from things, etc., is suggesting that everyone should somehow get “equal opportunities”, or is proposing an actual concrete definition of how that would work. (Would you require that all promotions be internally posted and limit the amount of opportunities people can apply to? No one would call that equitable - that would disadvantage people with, say, racist bosses wanting to switch orgs.)
> If I don't have kids and grind harder than women who take time to raise kids, why should we have equal opportunities?
they're not comparing vs people who are grinding. I think they just want some guarantee that they won't be discriminated against because of maternity leave. And that they'll have some kind of on-ramp for getting back into the workforce
Which is entirely doable and reasonable, just a question of whether corporations are held accountable here or not
I've maintained a fairly popular open source project for over 13 years[1]. The software is basically "complete." How does funding work for someone like me? I have no initiatives with it that require funding. Occasionally, I need to fix a bizarre obscure bug, or support a new python version/feature (async/await being the last big one). But otherwise, I just field questions a few times a month.
Truth be told, I'd rather be done with the project completely. It's like a little monkey on my back that I can never be rid of, that I must always tend to. But at the same time, since I can never realistically receive funding for it, the only value I get is the fact that my name is on it. I wish a big, legit company would just buy it off of me somehow, but there's no incentive for them either. I don't know how this ends.
I had the exact same experience with Nodemailer, a popular open-source project I started 14 years ago. My solution was to empty the README file and set up a dedicated documentation website. Since the project is popular, the documentation website receives around 70,000 visits per month. I initially tried paid ads, but they only netted about $200 per month—not great. So, I started a commercial project somewhat related to Nodemailer and added ads for my new project on Nodemailer’s documentation page. This brings in around 3,000 visits per month to my paid project through the ads on the documentation page. Even if the conversion rate is low, it’s essentially free traffic for my paid project, which is now approaching $10,000 MRR. Without the free visitor flow from my OSS project’s documentation page, I definitely wouldn’t have made it this far.
This is a really interesting approach, I hadn't thought of this!
Just out of curiosity, do you think the separate documentation page has better conversion than if you were to, say, include the ad directly into the readme inside the repo?
You have less control over formatting and ad placement in the README file, as rendered markdown offers only limited options. With a dedicated documentation website, it’s much easier.
It’s also a question of sovereignty. If your documentation is in the README, then GitHub owns the audience. If they, for some reason, close your project, you’re finished. With your own documentation page, the risk is much lower.
Thanks for sharing. It's an interesting idea, to try to trampoline it into another related commercial project. I just checked my RTD analytics, I get around 1k pageviews to `/` per month. Unfortunately I don't have a related commercial product either.
When I started with Nodemailer, my goal was to build a cool product—not to become an unpaid helpdesk employee for life. But here we are. So, I’ve been trying to monetize the project in various ways for the past ten years. I’ve tried everything (license restrictions, freelancing and consulting, paid extensions, etc.), and each approach failed for different reasons. The only strategy that actually took off was using Nodemailer’s documentation page as a referral source for another relevant paid project.
For example, I once switched the license of Nodemailer from MIT to EUPL, with the option of still getting a MIT version if you paid for it. I had some paying customers, but it turned out they were all spammers using stolen credit cards (I guess they misunderstood what the paid offering was). So, when the chargebacks came in, my account actually went into the negative.
Very interesting! I wonder if, sadly, the rise of AI-assisted coding will chip away also at this potential revenue stream? As developers simply ask a local or cloud LLM how to use a piece a software instead of reading the documentation.
You can always just stop working on it. You aren't obligated to do anything further if it doesn't bring you joy. Update the README to say you've stopped maintaining it, and to add a bit about searching for a new maintainer.
If you believe you still get an ongoing benefit (reputational or whatever) by being its maintainer and continuing to support it, and if you still want that benefit, then you have to keep up the work. Very little in life is truly free, unfortunately.
You could also see if there's a way to monetize your work on it. If people want support or need bugs fixed, they can pay you to do so, for example. Might even look into GitHub Sponsors, if you haven't already. I do get that it's harder to solicit donations for something that's "finished", though.
It's always an option to just publicly announce that you will no longer maintain it anymore and that you are either looking for a successor, or encouraging the community to fork it.
I'm trying to give them the benefit of the doubt that it is a real experience, but yes it currently reads like marketing material aimed at the obese, depressed tech worker.
Somewhat related, I have a short rant about embedded browsers killing the web.
Embedded browsers make it impossible (literally in some cases, figuratively in others) to use social OAuth. If you click a link on Instagram, which by default opens in Instagram's browser, and that link has "Sign in with Google", it simply will not work, because Google blocks "insecure browsers", which Instagram is one. There are even issues getting "Sign in with Facebook" to work, and Meta owns Instagram and Facebook! The Facebook embedded browser suffers from similar issues.
Embedded browsers have many great use cases, but navigating to arbitrary links is not one of them.
It's virtually never useful to me when I click on a link in Slack or whatever, then respond to a text message, and go back to my browser expecting to find my page there, and it's nowhere because Slack has gobbled it up in its own browser.
Fortunately I just checked and there's a way to disable the embedded browser in Slack.
