I'm not a huge fan of Ruby, but even if you admit that Rails is superior to Django, it would be a hard sell to invest in Ruby ecosystem instead of Python
I'm doing something similar to OP with Django right now
Each to their own of course, and not arguing that the Ruby ecosystem is amazing (although I thought so in 2008), with Python’s eleventy different package managers, I wouldn’t call the ecosystem great. It’s one of the main reasons I get bummed out having to use the language. Sure there’s lots of work going on to improve that, but it’s still smattered all over the place.
Every Python developer is now an "AI developer" and I can't find a bog-standard python BE dev without paying the AI tax. Having a sizeable but out of vague market of Ruby (or .NET) devs right now at a significant comparable discount is a nice treat.
I am a Python and Django developer and I do not even want to do "AI". I prefer to do what I have lots of experience of and know I am good at. I cannot be the only one.
> This past week at RubyKaigi in Ehime, Yukihiro "Matz" Matsumoto, the creator of the Ruby programming language, gave a presentation on “Programming Language for AI Age”. In the keynote presentation, he discussed how Ruby can dominate in the AI age, due to its conciseness, expressiveness, and extensible nature with DSLs.
The talk isn't available online yet, but I'm excited to see what he has to say.
Also a reminder that all the heavy lifting in the AI ecosystem is done by C++ libraries, and Ruby has a great FFI for interfacing with C++. Also most app makers are just interfacing with web APIs anyway. Either way, you're covered.
Can you give an example? Usually short term price fluctuation would be in response to something like a sudden change in market demand or something like a natural disaster lowering production but nothing like that seems to have happened other than the largest tax increase in U.S. history and the demand shock from the federal cuts should be lowering prices, not raising them.
> Usually short term price fluctuation would be in response to something like a sudden change in market demand or something like a natural disaster lowering production
That's theoretical economics, meanwhile in the real world, retail stores change the prices of goods depending on the weather or holidays.
And in your theory thousands of vendors around the world all randomly did this in the same direction at the same time? It’s not like chocolate eggs before Easter are the only thing going up while the rest of the economy is chugging along like normal.
Similarly, weather could explain the decline of winter gear sales in the northern hemisphere or specific commodities being hit by a storm but that wouldn’t affect the whole economy and we’d all have seen coverage of some epic monsoon or drought if it was that impactful.
I just gave you examples of the most common reasons for price changes that your mental model wasn't taking into account.
Prices vary based on many more factors than what you think it does, that's it.
> all randomly did this in the same direction at the same time
Who says it's random? Most of the variation is very likely linked to the US government actions, but the first order effect of actual tariffs is far from the only way the Trump administration is messing up the economy. In fact, the mess started long before the tariffs actually went enforced and it didn't stop when they where suspended.
All I’m talking about is basic supply and demand: if prices suddenly go up significantly, that usually means that there is either a big change in demand or the supply has become limited and buyers are having to pay more. A big natural disaster can cause that if it affects agricultural supply, shipping, or factory production (e.g. years ago, flooding in Thailand caused hard drive prices to double[1]).
My point was simply that since nothing like that has happened, prices spiking is almost certainly due solely to the tariffs.
The problem is that you are invoking a crude theory in a simplistic fashion that has with very little predictive power over the real world.
It's as if you told a guy working in a ski station that “the temperature cannot be above 0°C as there's snow everywhere and everyone knows that snow melts above zero”.
It's not how it works, and the economy doesn't work in the simplified fashion you seem to believe it does either. You cannot reason from first principles using “basic supply and demand” arguments like that any more than you can make statements about the weather using the second law of thermodynamics.
Price change all the time for variety of reasons, seasons being one of them (that's why CPI figures are said to be “seasonally adjusted”, BTW).
> The problem is that you are invoking a crude theory in a simplistic fashion that has with very little predictive power over the real world.
I appreciate the mix of unwarranted condescension with the assertion that the theory that sudden tariffs cause sudden price increases doesn’t have predictive value, when basically every sober analyst predicted what we are seeing now.
It’s not exactly a secret that prices fluctuate seasonally but what we’re seeing now is spread across the entire economy, suddenly, and in sectors which do not normally experience that seasonal volatility.
> what we’re seeing now is spread across the entire economy, suddenly
Including in sectors that aren't affected by tariffs at all, that's the thing.
> the assertion that the theory that sudden tariffs cause sudden price increases doesn’t have predictive value, when basically every sober analyst predicted what we are seeing now.
You are misunderstanding. Tariffs will cause price increase with certainty. But so will lowering the USD value on FX markets, and so will adding massive uncertainty to businesses (including, but not limited to, the prospect of higher inflation in the near future), etc.
Tariffs will cause price hikes, but attempting to measure tariffs effect by observing price variations simply cannot work.
Real life prices are influenced by much more than just supply and demand.
I've been convinced for a while that teaching economics broadly is a mistake, people who have taken a minimum amount of economics class do in fact understand less how the economy works than people who don't…
When data can be this isolated from each other and you don't have any scaling issues within a single tenant it's pretty hard to make a wrong design choice. Almost anything will work.
I've been working in the space the last few years and what I've gathered is Librarians themselves often hate what libraries have become. The ones working in University libraries seem to enjoy their job a lot more than the ones in large cities that act as homeless shelters.
reply