Reflections

“Why are there different programing languages?”

An acquaintance once asked me this shortly after taking an online programming course. I said something about how any given language can be better or worse at solving a particular problem. French is great for poetry, and Haskell is great at representing algorithms and mathematical functions.

Nonsense!

Well, no, not completely. It's true. It's just not the whole story. Consider Python and Ruby. Why do we need both? Yes, yes, sure, there are important differences, but in the grand scheme of things, are they really that different? Hardly. They're both dynamic scripting languages which work well for web development. We could save a lot of time and energy by deprecating one and only using the other.

For that matter, why do we need Billy Joel and Elton John? They're not that different. They both play piano, they both write pop songs, and they both tour internationally. Talk about a waste of recourses! We could really save a lot of time and effort by having them join forces.

Does anyone think that would work? Of course not. Elton John doesn't want to sing “Scenes from an Italian Restaurant” and Billy Joel doesn't want to sing “Tiny Dancer.” Billy Joel doesn't care about fashion and Elton John doesn't care about Long Island. They don't want to work together!

In the same way, Guido van Rossum thought it would be fun to create Python, and Yukihiro Matsumoto thought it would be fun to create Ruby. Millions of programmers like using blocks and millions of others love **kwargs. Who are we to disagree with them? Do we really think they would be equally productive doing something they don't enjoy?

Music is not a utilitarian matter, and neither is computer programming. Software development is an art as much as it is a science. When we forget that, we miss some of our most important opportunities.

A bottle of red, a bottle of white It all depends on your appetite

#SoftwareDevelopment #Tech

The newly-published video Impossible Challenges (Google Veo 3 ) by demonflyingfox is both an amazing showcase of Google's new Veo 3 AI (to be fair, I'm sure there was post-production) and hilarious commentary on the kind of algorithmic bullshit YouTube is constantly manipulating creators into publishing.

edit (2025-12-30): Although I was sure there had to be post-production when I published this, I'm no longer sure. If there was, there wasn't necessarily much. Sora 2 shows that this technology really is that amazing.

#SocialMedia #Tech

“People are package deals; you take the good with the confused. In most cases, strengths and weaknesses are two sides of the same coin.”

—Steve Jobs

#Philosophy

“Now and then it's good to pause in our pursuit of happiness and just be happy.”

—Unknown, though commonly attributed to Guillaume Apollinaire

#Life #Quotes

It seems to me, we're more different from our friends, family, and acquaintances than we've ever been.

Two hundred years ago, if a neighbor child had caused trouble on one's farm after a storm and the victim wanted to learn how to manage their frustration from a Christian perspective, who might they turn to? Who would fully understand their situation? I don't know… everyone!? Well, almost everyone. Their friends, family, and acquaintances would be neighbors, with the same weather, religion, fellow acquaintances, and, in many cases, the same occupation.

Today, if a former Lutheran and current Buddhist accountant living in Portland has trouble getting along with their boss, an evangelical former banker living in Omaha, who might they turn to? Who would truly understand their predicament? Hardly anyone. Many people would be able to offer advice, yes, but would they really get it?

I haven't even mentioned political affiliation, with politics now less a tool for solving practical problems and more a means of self-realization.

I wonder to what extent this explains rising rates of depression, anxiety, loneliness, and other unhappiness.

#Life

I just read John Gruber's blog post recommending Kagi as a replacement for Google Search when it occurred to me, for the hundredth time in the last year… what the hell happened to anti-spam efforts at Google Search?

I met Matt Cutts once in 2011. He was very kind, and he explained to me that he worked to combat search engine spam at Google. At the time, I didn't really understand what he was talking about, but boy do I understand now. Perhaps that's the best compliment I could give him; few notice anti-spam efforts when things are going well.

Matt Cutts has since left Google, and now, I get lots of results which provide very little value. What a shame. Apparently, Google needed him more than he needed Google.

#SoftwareDevelopment #Tech

My five-word movie review of Conclave:

Every frame, a gorgeous photo.

#FiveWordMovieReview

I'm an AI maximalist. Over time, I expect AI to become much, much more capable than most people imagine. In time, I expect AI will be able to do anything a human being can do, and much faster. AI will not be able to directly manipulate the physical world, of course, but with some initial support from human beings, it will be able to build robots that can.

That's not to say I'm an accelerationist or optimist. That's another issue entirely, and I don't know exactly how I feel about it. I tend to believe AI will probably do immense harm to humanity in the long run, however, either intentionally or unintentionally. I'm not confident enough in that view to change my behavior in any way, and even if I were, I wouldn't know what to do about it. Superintelligent AI is coming, and there doesn't seem to be any way to stop it.

In any case, I do expect that AI will soon replace almost all human knowledge workers. How soon is “soon”? It's hard to say. We may need a revolution in AI technology, not an evolution, to get there. LLMs may not be enough. Still, if the AI takeover of knowledge work takes 100 years, I would be very surprised. If it takes 5 years or less, I'd be only modestly surprised. I'd guess there's about a 50% chance of it happening before 2050.

My reasoning is straightforward. I don't believe intelligence requires a human brain, computers are much faster than human beings, and the first company to develop a superintelligent AI is going to make a tremendous amount of money. The race is on.

I've heard the argument that AI will only complement human beings, forging partnerships that are greater than the sum of their parts. I consider that wishful thinking. Consider chess.com, which provides an analysis of each game after it's completed, identifying mistakes and suggesting better moves. It's a huge asset to the platform, and it's one reason people pay for premium memberships. Is chess.com tempted to hire human beings to do this work? Of course not. Computers are vastly better at chess, they are incredibly fast, and they are much more cost effective, not needing sleep, health insurance, bathroom breaks, or team-building exercises. Yes, there are some human commentators at highly-publicized matches, but for the millions of other games played on the platform each day? Hell no. The computers do it, and why shouldn't they? It's a “no brainer.”

Get ready for the same thing to happen to software engineering, media production, accounting, and just about everything else that largely involves transforming information.

What happens after that? Only time will tell.

#Tech

These days, when someone tells me they “did their own research,” I immediately suspect they have no idea what they're talking about and have no idea how to think critically. We know that Google and practically all other search engines customize their results based on what they know about the user and what most pushes their buttons. For that reason and others, sadly, “doing one's own research” is now code for falling prey to confirmation bias and being manipulated by online platforms and filter bubbles.

#Life #SocialMedia #Tech