It was Biden HIMSELF who originally said giving Long Rang Missiles, Tanks, and American Fighter Jets to Ukraine would start WWIII. lol. So your quip carries very little weight.
Harris did not (or may not have) but Democratic punditry and commentariats were full of "the economy is objectively great, why is it subjectively sucking?" articles, for months.
Because they look at metrics like GDP and the stock market and unemployment, and fail to realize that it's not evenly distributed. Increasing GDP and stock market indicate somebody is making a lot of money, but the average voter isn't seeing any of that in their own lives.
Well, they look at average wages, average hourly wages, median household income, median disposable income. All of these things improved right alongside "inflation" to the point where anyone who was not an outlier for those statistics ended up no financially worse off (and arguably somewhat ahead) than where they were pre-COVID.
The problem is that people remember the "old" prices, not the "old" paychecks.
It has been said that people see wage increases as something they have a right too (periodically, anyway) but see inflation as something imposed by a 3rd party with bad intent.
I heard Biden and partisans say it a lot, and I cringed every time. In his first State of the Union, I clearly remember him bragging about record high house prices. I cringed at that too.
What did Harris herself say? Not much; she barely had any time.
There was one voice within the Democratic Party whose communication about this was good: Bernie Sanders.
The Biden-Harris administration said as much constantly.
When the gaslighting failed to achieve the desired effect (make everyone believe their grocery bill is half of what it actually is) - then they just changed the message to "those darn greedy mega corporations are price gouging you!".
The citizens of this country gave a large middle finger to the gaslighting and bullshittery that was the economic messaging coming from the Biden-Harris administration - and then when Harris failed to enumerate how her administration would be different than the existing one... she was doomed.
I agree about one person or organisation too much power, and fear the potential for abuse, but the problem in the Iran example are the theocratic laws, not really the tools that help enforce them. Good behaviour is already defined by each nation's legislation.
some tools make it too easy to enforce bad laws at scale. it's a lot of work for the morality police to catch up to every woman who removes her hijab and cart her to jail. unless you're watching all the women all the time, they'll often get away with it. mass surveillance really takes a lot of the legwork out of running a repressive regime.
This has a broader purpoae in democracy. Laws change as people realize they are stupid and disobey them then opinion changes and the law catches up. The chance of being caughy and/or the punishment cant be too high to short circuit this for all but the most obviously bad crimes (ie murder, large scale theft, rape)
Yes, his decision making is sound, and comes with a huge weight of experience and understanding of how the world works. His ability to communicate effectively has diminished, but not his ability to assess facts and make effective determinations.
Death actually can be the price of being wrong. Just wait for someone to do the wrong thing with an AI tool they weren't supposed to use for what they were doing, and the AI to spit out the worse possible "hallucination" (in terms of outcome).
What you say is true, however with self-driving cars death, personal injury, and property damage are much more immediate, much more visible, and many of the errors are of a kind where most people are qualified to immediately understand what the machine did wrong.
An LLM that gives you a detailed plan for removing a stubborn stain in your toilet that involves mixing the wrong combination of drain cleaners and accidentally releasing chlorine, is going to happen if it hasn't already, but a lot of people will read about this and go "oh, I didn't know you could gas yourself like that" and then continue to ask the same model for recipes or Norwegian wedding poetry because "what could possibly go wrong?"
And if you wonder how anyone can possibly read about such a story and react that way, remember that Yann LeCun says this kind of thing despite (a) working for Facebook and (b) Facebook's algorithm gets flack not only for the current teen depression epidemic, but also from the UN for not doing enough to stop the (ongoing) genocide in Myanmar.
It's a cognitive blind spot of some kind. Plenty smart, still can't recognise the connection.
No one is afraid of writing code, we're afraid of maintaining code, and solving tedious and repetitive problems that already have solutions. Frameworks abstract complexity, which in practical terms decreases the complexity I personally have to deal with, and shifts the complexity to the minds of a team of open-source developers who support the framework or library in parallel. Abstraction is exactly how we push the industry forward, not by building less, more basic, and shittier applications in a some faux-noble quest to use inline event handlers.
The chances of this happening before your project is obsolete are pretty slim.
Edit: it depends on what you mean by "bites the dust". If you mean "isn't cool anymore" then I'd say that's kind of irrelevant. If you mean "isn't supported anymore", I don't see that happening any time within the next decade at least. Rails isn't cool anymore but it's still supported and lots of people are still (more or less) happily using it at their day jobs. React is so widely used it'll be kept on life support long after it has been supplanted by something better, if and when that happens.
>React is so widely used it'll be kept on life support long after it has been supplanted by something better, if and when that happens.
React might be 10 years old, but it changed like 5 times during that time.
Something built in first or second version of React is pretty much an entirely different framework at this point. (Would it even build with using the newset toolchains?).
It's almost disingenuous to ignore that fact.
So while it's unlikely that there won't be a thing called "React" in the future, it's not that crazy of an idea.
React's first flavor (class-based components) are fully backwards compatible with today's React versions. It doesn't seem odd to me that a popular library identifies its pain points and improves its APIs & patterns over time. That's the beauty of open source software with large communities guiding their growth.
Today, it's moving heavily towards server-side rendering because the client-side / SPA format is already quite mature. Their approach with server components is an optimization path that uses concepts/patterns from already popular server-side languages and frameworks + templating, and blends them seamlessly with client-side development, giving engineers the best of many worlds.
This was a natural evolution from NextJS which popularized this way of using React, and it's giving engineers more choices in how they build + optimize their apps.
No you're right, but the benefit is: a more consistent dev experience across client and server-side. Being able to write the same components in either environment for specific optimization purposes (static rendering vs. interactions) is a huge plus. It reduces the cognitive overhead of context switching between languages and technologies.
When there are so many projects that run on React, and so many companies rely on React, it's inevitable that it will be supported for a long time to come, even if it would go out of fashion.
And speaking from experience maintaining React apps is quite nice. React has great backwards compatibility, and where it doesn't there are usually codemods available. Dependencies can be tricky, but that's not exclusive to React.
Also don't forget React evolves, backed by multiple #huge companies, and still innovating.
I love maintaining and cleaning up code (I will insist on cleaning up according to my taste even if it already works fine in production, just like when I carve the turkey I eat some crispy and fatty pieces hot from the oven) It takes a great weight off my short term memory and ADD that I know that the code already worked, so if it stops working, I did it, recently.
But here's the thing, hot-shot devs, and hot-shot dev wannabes look down on maintenance; and humans are social creatures, me included. So I'm not going to do a job for you that you look down on, unless you carry me in (and out) on a sedan chair.
Same for writing doc, I'm good at it and enoy it, but there's no pleasure in doing something that other people don't really value.
Better than maintaining vanilla JS applications that reinvented React for no d*mn reason. At least there's a massive pool of engineers who could jump into an old project and work on it right away, rather than wading through some clever engineer's buggy attempt at a view state management system.
Popular backend templating systems face the same problem with possible sunsetting and decay of collective knowledge over time.
React is a great investment, and is here to stay for a long time because its team (and community) are massive, and are keeping pace with newer libraries/frameworks that are in a lot of ways doing things better. React's market share has hardly been touched by Vue, Svelte, Solid, etc. and less so by HTMX and other new attempts at un-frameworking the web.
I'll enjoy that a hell of a lot more than I'll enjoy doing the same thing on bullshit vanilla code I scratched together myself under the pressure of a deadline, lol.
