> Maybe the people on charge have personally invested heavily in Kick?

Twitch is owned by Amazon. AWS sells the streaming tech Twitch uses to Kick.

Amazon would probably rather sell IVS to Kick than try and figure out how to make Twitch profitable. Or the just don't care enough to notice the people at Twitch are just LARPing at business.

> my current job my boss has never told me not to do something. Getting the time to do it is another story

I’m confused. The polite way to say no at work is to make it about not having time.

Yeah the other story I refer to isn't using time as an excuse to block architectural improvements though. We get time for both new features and tech debt.

But if your idea blows out the quarter it had bettet be game changing!

> Just think about how easy it would be though

Endlessly painful. Right?

The defining characteristic is that everyone is using it, not that it's your personal ideal operating system. We have a few major players trying to create their version of the one single os. They're already nobodies ideal, and they have the luxury of telling people to go elsewhere if the system isn't right for them. Imagine how much worse it would be if they had to support everything.

It's weird because one of the main selling points for the principled position against surveillance is your inability to control which use-cases are allowed.

The way to avoid masked gestapo thugs is to ensure that not even your preferred leaders are able to create them.

>My read of the recent discussion is that people assume that the work of far fewer number of elites will define the patterns for the future.

Even if we assume that's true, what will prevent atrophy of the skillset among the elites with such a small pool of practitioners?

Money and fame. Lots of money and fame.

There is no shortage of Olympic hopeful elite athletes every four years, despite the incredibly small pool of competitors at each Games.

Same for musicians.

This kind of Winner-Take-All Economics or Superstar Market is what capital wants in their ideal world in markets with near-zero marginal costs of distribution. Even if software creation in the long-term does not fall to this kind of labor market, LLM's can establish a "market can be irrational longer than you can stay solvent" dynamic where capital can run the labor market like this for software for a generation or three before having to face the reflexivity music, like they did for US manufacturing.

And it mostly happens in government funded and/or commercially viable sports, with public schools where kids train for free, scholarships, numerous competitions etc. To gather those selected elites we take an enormous pool of aspiring athletes and support them from the ground up (usually with our taxes)

Where such support systems don’t exist you have a relatively shallow talent pool, and the best performers are a far cry from what could have been possible otherwise

People have been comparing tech - the status games, power brokering, need to juggle context-dependent sets of morals, etc - to working in Hollywood for as long as I can remember.

Under that mental model, the only thing surprising about this article is that WIRED would publish. It's conspiratorial and easy to construe as homophobic. This is an SF-based magazine that still has physical distribution. What editor in those shoes doesn't immediately spike a story like this? They know something.

> In most cases in software and especially devops I have found it means "pay for this product that constrains the way that you do things so you don't shoot yourself in the foot". It's not really a "practice" if you're using a product that gives you one way to do something.

The good thing about a lot of devops saas is that you're not paying anyone on staff to understand the problem domain and guide your team. The bad thing is that you're not paying anyone on staff to understand the problem domain and guide your team.

> if you use AI as a draft generator [...] you're spending your cognitive budget on the high-value parts (ideas, structure, voice

I don't follow. If you have the ideas and a structure to give to an AI you already have a working draft. Just start revising that. What would an AI add other than turn into the replacement for thinking described in your negative example?

And not born in Edinburgh, either.

I usually stop reading any article that brings up the dopamine hits in short timescale iteration loops (or lack thereof). We're professionals, we have to detach ourselves from that part of our brains when we think at day, month, year, or career timescales.

Forget professionalism, learning to deprioritize Type I fun for other goals is a childhood development.

I'm not saying deliberately suffer. Maybe just don't chase the dragon through programming, right?