> The problem is that, as we are currently seeing, that any administration can reverse any policy previously set. So any regulation is not a permanent solution.
Depends on what you mean by "can". You're right in that any administration that successfully abandons the rule of law can do anything they want, but that's not a problem inherent to regulation as a concept. Regulation is a good solution, but it won't work when a corrupt, lawless regime is in power. It's kinda like saying we shouldn't vaccinate because being forced to drink toilet water can kill us.
As for not being a permanent solution, that's okay. No regulation is meant to be permanent. Regulations are supposed to change, but there's supposed to be a process to follow and that process is supposed to ensure that the change happens for the good of the society and is governed by the will of the people.
The fact that none of those prerequisites are currently satisfied does not imply that regulation doesn't work.
This administration has gotten SCOTUS to agree that many of these agencies are under control of POTUS and not independent agencies. That means the agencies work at the whims of POTUS or else POTUS will replace the agency leadership with people that will. That will see an exodus of other people that would potentially put up any resistance.
So I'm not really sure where you seem to think an abandonment of rule of law is at play
The rule of law means that everyone, including the administration, has to follow the laws. When an administration repeatedly ignores or defies court orders, they have abandoned the rule of law.
Others have already talked to you about the significance of your anecdata and your faintly dismissive tone, but there's something else in your comment that tickled me and that no one's addressed yet:
> 2010-2020 felt like tech dystopia to me. Cellphone incrementalism, walled gardens, adtech, crypto, locked down devices. It was a pale shadow of the excitement of the early web. Personal websites, kids making Flash games, the indie web, p2p, people building stuff being 70% of the internet. For the first time in a long time, I feel extremely hopeful about the future and excited to work with tech again.
Who do you think was responsible for that dystopia? It wasn't those people you mentioned, who built the 70% of the old internet. The enshittification started when the people whose passion in life is to make money caught the scent of money-making potential the internet had.
But then, how did those people actually accomplish the enshittification we're dealing with now? The answer is: with the enthusiastic help of the True Believers. Crypto is the best example. Just recall how many devs were convinced that the blockchain was going to revolutionize everything. And I mean devs. Not snake-oil peddlers in suits, not LinkedIn influencers, none of the usual posse of posers, but people who actually wrote code and were reasonably good at that.
And that's not the only example, just the best one. I've been there myself. Back when OOP, UML, capital-A Agile, CMMi, and MDA (Model Driven Architecture) were the Hot New Thing, I was one of the True Believers, following the trends and proselytizing my colleagues.
Every bit of the dystopia you lament was pushed by the combination of ambitious MBAs and True Believer devs.
And the reason I bring this up is because you're one of those True Believers now. It's easy to fall into that trap. All you need is to have enough good experiences with the Hot New Thing to suppress your critical thinking and believe that this will Make Everything Great Again.
The same kind of people who profited off the tech dystopia you saw are now ushering a new, worse tech dystopia that you're turning a blind eye to. Your belief that this new tech will somehow balance and even counteract what those people did to the internet you loved is not based in facts. It's faith.
> Yes, using original paint in 16 colors saved to PCX in 640x480 should be enough for anybody.
There's a wide, wide gap between adding features that your users need and adding features that you want to cram down their throats to promote other products that you want them to use.
> Or we could let owners of properties add features as they see fit.
Or we could let paying users offer legitimate criticism of the products they use, without essentially telling them to shut up.
> Well the government was illegitimate. Is that what you're contending happening here?
When the jury of your peers decides that you should not be punished for something despite the law stating otherwise, it is a powerful statement. There's a reason why the judicial system is set up to allow this.
> Are you trying to overthrow the police department or municipal government?
The people in the US are not there yet. But you might want to recall JFK's words: "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
Take a look at what's happening in the US, think about it for a while, and then come back and tell everyone whether you think the people are being properly represented by their government and served by their public servants.
> How do you feel about Jan 6?
I feel that Jan 6 is one of the watershed moments that led us to where we are now. The fact that those responsible weren't punished was a clear signal that the rule of law was being abandoned.
You're behaving like the relationship between the government and the people is symmetrical. It's not. When the government stops obeying its own laws, people take notice.
Now, that is a letter to new developer that I wish I had read when I was a new developer:
Dear new developer,
Be careful when reading blogs. A lot of stuff you'll read online is insightful, informative, innovative, or inspiring. By all means, enrich your life with what you read, but be sure to also re-read "Wind in the Willows" from time to time and reflect on the character of Mr. Toad.
Regards,
Someone Who Made The Mistake of Putting Certain Bloggers on a Pedestal
> just like people have autonomy over their bodies, they deserve autonomy over their software, without having to rely on a corrupt and incompetent industry
The technical means you mention won't give you that. The same people that make the industry "corrupt and incompetent" are leveraging those technical means to make it even more corrupt and less competent. Meanwhile, the rest of us who work in that industry are rapidly losing power to push back.
You can't rely solely on technology to solve problems rooted in human nature. I mean, we have better technology than at any point in human history, and somehow we're regressing on the issue of bodily autonomy.
This is why I'm so frustrated with people who are fanatical about AI adoption. It's not a panacea, it won't usher in some shiny utopia, it's just another technology that can be used both to improve lives and to oppress. If you take a careful look at our society, you can see which of those two uses is currently dominant.
Without salespeople you can't sell software. Without developers, you can't make software. Since we all have to pay bills, selling software is of crucial importance, but that doesn't make the developers less important. It just means that the society we live in makes those who sell as important as those who make. Just like we strive to evolve software development, we should also strive to evolve the society.
I've made software that people happily used without anyone selling it to them or me earning a single cent off of it. At my age, if I had the luxury of not having to worry about money, that's the kind of thing I would be doing all the time.
Sales is part of the capitalism layer that sits atop the actual work. Same as CEOs and finance. None of them do useful work, only decide what useful work gets done. In communism you couldn't sell software without a Party representative - that doesn't mean he's useful.
I think the development team's work in this scenario is more akin to basic research. There is still some chance they may discover something unexpected.
It’s not basic research in the vast, vast majority of business cases you’re describing. They aren’t Bell Labs doing novel work, they’re usually doing busy work on mundane apps. I’m not going to move our understanding of financial physics forward playing around with a social media or CRUD app. Hell, most work isn’t even testing a hypothesis other than “I hope this change doesn’t break shit”
It comes across as “everyone else’s work is trivial and low value but my, MY, work is difficult and important”. We shouldn’t be so precious.
I took “basic research” to mean “fundamental research”. Sqlite is not fundamental research. It’s an exception that proves the rule. It was literally designed for a solving a specific problem. Somewhat ironically, it also comes from the industry that originated the term “self-licking ice cream cone”. An occasional useful offshoot doesn’t justify massive amounts of otherwise less useful busywork
Basic research is research done without an obvious application. In the same way, development can be done without an obvious application. All those mathematicians studying prime numbers in the 1600s-1800s came in useful later when we invented good cryptography.
Right. As you said, sqlite was developed to fill a specific need, therefore it’s applied research and not basic research. (I wouldn’t even consider it research, but more development, but I’m trying to be generous to the discussion)
I sometimes wonder whether that's a better idea for these micro-optimizations, rather than looking at the assembly code and trying to coax the compiler into generating what you want.
That said, I'm not keen on "argue and you're off the project" work environment.
Depends on what you mean by "can". You're right in that any administration that successfully abandons the rule of law can do anything they want, but that's not a problem inherent to regulation as a concept. Regulation is a good solution, but it won't work when a corrupt, lawless regime is in power. It's kinda like saying we shouldn't vaccinate because being forced to drink toilet water can kill us.
As for not being a permanent solution, that's okay. No regulation is meant to be permanent. Regulations are supposed to change, but there's supposed to be a process to follow and that process is supposed to ensure that the change happens for the good of the society and is governed by the will of the people.
The fact that none of those prerequisites are currently satisfied does not imply that regulation doesn't work.
reply