There will always be a place for calligraphy, artisan, who place creativity, handcraft and art first.
You can see it like pizzas:
there will always be someone who actually makes these pizzas from scratch; grows his own tomatoes in his garden, does his own flour, does his own cheese, raises pigs, etc.
But these are exceptions, maybe 0.001% - it gets very very expensive, these people do it for passion and art, not for money or scale.
You need to pre-order your pizza weeks before, you will pay a lot and you are not sure what will be the final taste (hopefully tasty), and you buy a story and supports someone.
On the other end, you have companies like Gustavo Gusto who produce 100'000 pizzas a day.
Quality ingredients, great execution, convenient, immediate, available and cheaper than hiring someone.
The irony is that the expensive and slow small artisan may actually make a worse product, than something which has been battle-tested on millions of people and whose supply chain has been controlled end-to-end.
After all of that, the industrial fonts like Roboto are not that bad, and if the industrial people offer you to customize it in a couple of prompts, then this is the cherry on top.
It's not about the shilling. It's about death of quality. As society we are self-destructing our culture using trash AI copies. It doesn't matter if it's fonts, code, movies or illustrations. Look at that service - the fonts are shit to meh but they are free. Corpo managers will of course want to squeeze every drop so they will push for free - especially as the AI gets close. So instead of allowing someone obsessive to produce highest quality output they can… we stop this by using stolen copy. In this can only lead to wiping any concepts of quality in our society while also robbing the people producing the quality work.
I for one, love it. I want every single mega corporation using crappy AI to the point where we can identify and not buy their products. Leave the little guys alone, they don't print money yet; so have not much choice.
You can try it out in the playground but not the consumer ChatGPT website. You will be limited to 10K tokens per minute if you are not in any spending tier e.g $150 per month will give you bigger context window.
Sellers like Mercate Group are a solid reason why the Apple/Amazon agreement took place. Look at the seller feedback - I’m not sure I understand why they’re still allowed to list product for smartphones/electronics.
It’s about as hard as someone from Alabama trying to pass as someone that grew up in New York. It’s not super hard but people will probably eventually find out.
For the vast majority of Indians, their last name gives away their caste. If not their last name, their way of speech, their place of birth, what they eat. Caste-ism is so ingrained amongst a lot of Indians, that it is the first thing they try to figure out upon meeting another Indian. It's pretty hard to hide, unless you belong to the small minority of people whose habits and name don't give away their caste.
I'm not Indian but my understanding is that you can typically tell someone's caste by their last name. I'd also imagine there'd be a host of cultural information that would be hard to fake, like knowing certain prayers or rituals. Brahmin's are vegetarian, so you'd have to only eat vegetarian at the office to pretend to be one. I even had a friend who told me his sub-caste had their own secret language they spoke.
It needs to be mentioned that casteism is less of an issue in the major urban areas and in South India. In these places it is possible to grow up and live your entire life without having to deal with caste, and Bengaluru is of the biggest urban areas in South India.
Really hard. There are so many caste markers. Surnames are the least of it. Speaking accent, diet, clothing and several other habits can some among them. Even worse, people who believe in castes are part-time detectives who often do background checks on others. At least, that's the case in India. I don't know how bad it is in the US - but I'm sure there will be some.
"Why?" "Because our culture has product managers demanding things with short deadlines and no concern about the code quality."
Does not sound like anything would change. I could chalk up a lot of failures, missed goals or mistakes to this culture of shipping the bare minimum because that's all the time you have. Sometimes it works well, others lead to tech debt that metastasizes because the engineers don't have to use what they built leading to instances like pricing errors that lost significant amounts of money.
Working at Amazon sometimes felt like everyone was gaming the system to hit impossible numbers/deadlines - Goodhart's law at scale.
Hah. I cannot count the number of times we made action items as a result of five COEs and the ultimate result was a SIM issue permanently sitting in our queue because there was always something more important to do.
It worked pretty well in my org (fulfillment/supply-chain) but maybe I just got lucky. As you might imagine that org was pretty functional, being the backbone of the retail business.
In my experience at Amazon, orgs which deal with physical things operate differently from orgs which deal solely with digital things. So the advertising org was more very "move fast and break things", while the Kindle org was more "if we ship a broken build then we brick millions of pieces of hardware, so we're going to manual verification on daily builds". Fulfillment having a healthy/diligent development culture fits that experience pretty well.
Platforms need to be regulated and not with the anti-trust laws created to deal with industries before software even existed.
We need a new Sherman or Clayton act specifically for platforms. You can split them out, social media platforms over X users are regulated in this way. Marketplaces over x users are regulated in this way.
We cannot rely on platform owners to update policy in response to mounting public pressure. Because you get things like this - rules on Apple's platform that won't be applied to significant platforms, just the developers who are too small to have any influence.
Ben Thompson has argued for this, but more in the abstract: government is focusing too much on using preexisting legal frameworks to handle these issues. In reality, the right framework doesn't exist yet!
In the States, this is on Congress: we need new laws and a new process to sort out this flavor of antitrust issue. The current stuff on the books doesn't cut it.
Also of note: I'm also not saying we need more laws. It's not a question of to what degree we do regulate this sort of thing: my point is that we don't even have a process to think about the issues! It's totally archaic.
Cannot agree more, there's this in the guidelines:
> Also avoid piling on to a category that is already saturated; the App Store has enough fart, burp, flashlight, fortune telling, dating, and Kama Sutra apps, etc. already. We will reject these apps unless they provide a unique, high-quality experience. Spamming the store may lead to your removal from the Developer Program.
I totally agree that there's enough of these types of apps, but you'll need to convince a reviewer that your "special" if you want to compete in that space. I'm torn between agreeing with Apple and being disgusted at the anti-competitive nature communicated. I just wonder if Apple uses this to say "oh, there's already enough find-my type apps" "oh, there's already enough music apps" "oh, there's already enough word processor apps" and you're left holding the bag of software you've spent the last year writing.
Regulation has its place. But regulation is also a slooow bureaucratic process. Regulators have no incentive to change with market conditions and in a fast moving industry will be a hindrance in no time. They also increase the cost of development benefiting the big guys that can afford an army of HR, Regulatory and Legal people to handle compliance.
We do need regulation that will protect developers and consumers from the huge monopolistic power of platform owners like Apple, Facebook, and Google. The regulation would be targeted specifically at those behemoths and not at small fry developers, since those don't have significant market power.
Today you don't need an army of legal people to deal with existing anticompetitive regulations if you're not a behemoth yourself. To argue that regulation designed to protect from monopolists will actually help those monopolists by its mere existence is ridiculous.
I've had this same thought for a while now, anti-trust is completely tangential to the current situation; we need new laws. I'm just worried that the new laws are generalizable enough to serve their purpose without creating loopholes or stifling innovation.
I haven't seen a good reason for needing new laws. Seems like a great way to carve out special rules for companies that think they can skirt existing anti-trust laws.
I couldn't figure out the Boss fight with cards though. I run out of energy and so I assume my turn is over. But how do I end my turn?
A button guide in the main menu would be helpful.