Then people should stop being dumbfucks and engage in local (which are frequently non-partisan) and state elections and primaries, and stop pretending that "the president didn't fix everything and make this a socialist utopia, so both parties suck" is a useful or vaguely intelligent criticism.

> Actually, it's really striking that even in America -- the developed country with the #1 highest birthrate -- still falls below the replacement rate. What is it that's inversely correlated between growing wealth and having children?

I think a lot of people miss the simple fact that some people just don't want kids and are unable to reconcile their personal experience with anyone else's.

My partner and I are both wealthy enough that we could both afford children and we can afford to not have children. But neither of us think our lives would be improved by having them.

I think that's really, really hard to understand for a lot of parents and people who want to be parents: being (relatively) wealthy creates choice, and that a growing number of people are choosing different things now that they have the ability to do so.

I think a lot of people are also pessimistic about the future.

It's fairly obvious the world will be very different and much less pleasant place by 2050. A lot of people don't want their kids to live through that.

It's possible aliens will arrive before then and fix all our problems, or some other Salvatio Ex Machina, but it's not exactly a high-odds bet.

> Hope you don't get there too late.

Too late for what? Could no one start a viable internet business in 2005, or were they all taken in 1998? Is it impossible to learn machine learning today, if you weren't jumping into Tensorflow in 2015? Do you think it's impossible to learn OpenClaw today, if you weren't playing with it six months ago, and do you think there might not be a successor that "wins" and is easier to learn and use six months from now, or will I have "gotten there too late" to possibly leverage or learn agents?

I just don't understand what it is you think anyone will be too late for, unless this is just self-justification and snide ego-boosting.

In 1998 or 2005 two persons could single-handedly start a Google or a Facebook. Not possible anymore today in Internet.

But in AI a single person created OpenClaw.

It's called low-hanging fruits.

> But in AI a single person created OpenClaw.

Do you think no one can create anything alone ever again? Or can they only do it by adopting the bleeding edge?

> It's called low-hanging fruits.

1 in a million ideas are 1 in a million, and they don't require being a bleeding edge adopter of anything. Do you think no one can create a better version of a first-try service? Is the agentic world now closed because someone built a mediocre version of it?

For a start-up based board, this point-of-view just feels so sad and myopic.

The argument about bitcoin was against it being "the future of currency". There is no point, whatsoever, to "getting in early" to that.

If everyone had been talking about it like the casino that it actually is, then sure - some people made some good bets, and a lot of people made bad ones trying to get in early. Imagine being the person who sold all your bitcoin for whatever other stupid memecoin, to "get in early"?

It's not a real counter-argument, it's just "I had a lot of dumb luck on this one specific thing, aren't you silly for not guessing as well as me".

People don't believe in that anymore. If your gut instinct was wrong, you're not only bound to it for all time, but you'd best angrily double down at every opportunity. God forbid you "flip flop" or consider new information, or whatever.

Fortunately the LLM will always see that your gut instinct was right all along.

Was "when it first came out" a confusing limiter, there? I guess it seems like the article was making the point that jumping on git the day it came out could've just meant learning the betamax of repos, and that it was better to wait a bit to see what mature tech looked like, rather than waiting until 202X to realize that saving multiple file versions was suboptimal.

I don't understand how this, at all, makes "the point" for anyone.

Using Git when it came out would have probably meant to use Cogito, which has been dead for such a long time by now.

Or have bet on Mercurial. Which is also close to dead. Or darcs, which has been big in certain environments and now practically extinct.

> leveraging their networks

Just finished a search - agree. The resume process is fundamentally broken, but a strong network makes it irrelevant. Lean on connections - there's a ton of opportunity out there.

> Everyone's an expert 19 days into a conflict that was absolutely foreseen in comprehensive United States military planning.

Sorry, what's the implication here? That no one else could've considered this all-but-inevitable conflict (inevitable given Republican geopolitical strategy) prior to yesterday? That some people can plan for things but everyone else is a neophyte because of... reasons? I don't understand how something can be "comprehensively planned" in your words, but also no one can possibly have an expertise because the conflict is too new. Which is it?

Do you think they were submitting as many PRs, or do you think maybe the LLMs are enabling them to vastly over submit to these projects, meaning that in this case, LLMs are the actual, whole problem?

I find it odd how people will refuse to think about context when defending their toys.

In June, Hegseth claimed those capabilities were “completely obliterated”, and yet they somehow came back in 8 months?

And that’s aside from the fact that US intelligence is historically anything but, when it comes to WMD claims.