Anyone who thinks an intricate illustration of a quill and ink communicates to the user "Hey this app is our Microsoft Word"...is not thinking about what function an icon is supposed to serve.
It's like comparing a road sign to an 18th century painting and saying "LOOK HOW FAR WE'VE FALLEN!"
The quill and ink at least communicates that it's about writing. The new one is so abstract that when I first looked at it I had no idea what I was even looking at, it certainly doesn't communicate "this is like word" to me. Without comparison to the previous icon, how many people do you think would understand that the bottom line is intended to be a stroke drawn by the pen?
I think you might be post-hoc rationalizing an emotional feeling, as clearly this meme is emotionally triggering to everyones nostalgia/pessimism nerve (hence why it went viral).
I'm 100% positive more people would guess the far left icon is a text editor compared to the far right icon. Not that I like the left icon aesthetically. Both are pretty weak icons.
Leftmost is probably a pen, rightmost is definitely a pen and specifically a fountain pen. I've never seen these icons before, and I'm trying to be the fairest I can, and I think rightmost wins at evoking "text editor". But the one exactly in the center wins by a mile. Pen on lined paper, hard to do better.
Same thought.
The one on the left just conveys "notes" to me. Middle actually seems to be about a more "well put together" document. A fountain pen by itself doesn't necessarily mean documents to me, but signing them.
Then we'll finally be getting the world we deserve.
Decades of VC cash has trained developers to never pay for anything that powers their entire career like dev tools. The assumption is you can always squeeze some rich business customer that employs the dev.
If AI kills hiring of software engineers, then there's less devs inside businesses to sell to. So we can either pay for the products we use directly, or not have them at all.
It will take a decade to shift penny pinching behavioral habits of devs but slowly over time the market will correct itself. Chefs have always had to buy their own knives. This is good imo.
While I don't agree with the haphazard and seemingly random policy changes coming from the US lately -- this is a bad take.
You do realize that discrimination by citizenship is conducted by basically every government on earth in the context of visas and tourism and residency?
In fact, what made the US so bizarre up until about 1914 was that they were the only major country that effectively had open borders. There was no welfare state to take advantage of back then, and you literally did have to pull yourself up by your bootstraps.
This only started to shift after the US began constructing its welfare state (welfare state expansion correlates with increasingly closed immigration policy, hence where we find ourselves today).
"So I realized, as you know I've been identifying as Black for a while, years now, because I like to be on the winning team"
"But as of today I'm going to re-identify as White, because I don't want to be a member of a hate group, I'd accidentally joined a hate group."
"The best advice I would give to White people is to get away hell away from Black people, just get the fuck away. Wherever you have to go, just get away. Because there's no fixing this, this can't be fixed, you just have to escape. So that's what I did, I went to a neighborhood where I have a very low Black population"
The first is a (totally legitimate) dig at DEI policies, has nothing to do with racism; the other two need to be put in context, as he was reacting to a poll according to which a sizeable proportion of black people disagreed with the statement "it's ok to be white".
Now, someone who disagrees with the statement "it's ok to belong to <ethnic group>" is usually called a racist. That's if we stick to the default meaning of words, without second and third guessing what people really mean to say when they deny it's ok to belong to an ethnic group. I think it's legitimate to be upset in this context and at the normalisation of such a thought, even to the point of reacting offensively.
I think the equivalent statement, as in one that is preexisting and has political connotations[1], would be "Black lives matter", for which I would not be surprised to see a decent number of "unsure" responses among white poll respondents asked to agree or disagree, especially a few years ago.
I don't think either response is great, but I don't think a single poll of 130 people is a good justification to make such statements about an entire race of people. And follow up polls conducted by others after the referenced Rasmussen poll got much more nuanced results[2].
"Black lives matter" is an excellent example. I think the reactionary phrase "White lives matter" might be even better, as while almost everyone would (and should) agree with it without context, in the context of people complaining about "Black lives matter", lots of people would disagree with it or be unsure about it.
I mean, I'd count myself among them. If you asked me if I agree that white lives matter, yes, of course we do. If you asked me about it in a political poll about other reactionary phrases, I might have to think long and hard about what it's really saying in that context.
> he was reacting to a poll according to which a sizeable proportion of black people disagreed with the statement "it's ok to be white".
The context of that poll was an alt-right uplifting of the phrase "it's OK to be white", as though they were being oppressed and were finally removing the yoke of hatred they'd endured. A similar poll might ask about the phrases "not all men" or "me too". In isolation, who could possibly have a problem with either of those?, but these things aren't taken in isolation.
I'd be curious about a followup question like "is it acceptable for someone to be white", which is asking the exact same question, on the surface, but in context is asking something completely different.
For it to be a legitimate dig at DEI, there would need to be some evidence of significant black advancement in corporate world for reasons unrelated to their qualifications. Have there been any?
Why just in the corporate world? Is Kamala Harris not an example? Or do we think being an unimpressive DA in San Francisco who dropped out before Iowa, merited the vice presidency AND the presidential nomination that she also got handed to her?
Absolutely. I consider that to be primarily Biden's fault for not announcing in advance that he would not seek a second term. After that point, I think each decision made was the best that could be done at the time to minimize the damage.
There have absolutely been cases of VPs becoming President without ever winning their own primary though, and I doubt most would describe those cases as DEI despite demographics often playing a large part in VP picks.
Though Harris was an unserious VP pick in the first place (2020). Given that Biden was 183 years old at the time, he should have picked a VP that Americans or at least Democratic voters had demonstrated at least moderate acceptance as a President in the primary, instead of picking essentially the least popular Democrat in the race (just to pander? Why else?). I guess the DEI dogma told him that it's better to have a Black woman on the ticket even if she was the worst choice by any measure: ability to get votes, relatability, or political experience. The funniest part is that Harris was most unpopular in the primary with the 'wokest' Democratic voters -- they hated her for being a decent D.A. and charging criminals with crimes, even ones who were 'disadvantaged minorities.' DEI forced her selection anyway because she checked two identity boxes.
Indeed. The biggest election win she had outside of San Francisco prior to her coronation as the nominee in 2024 was a Senate special election where she drew 40% of voters. 3 million Californians voted for her out of 7.5 million voters. California has 39 million residents, but about 5 million are non-citizens.
Actually more Californians voted for the Republican against her in the 2014 election for attorney general, than voted for Harris when she later ran for Senate in the special election.
Obama by contrast had won 3.6 million votes, in a smaller state, for a decisive 70% win in his Senate race.
Harris was a joke of a candidate who was obviously unelectable outside of a deep blue state, but she was forced on us so the DNC could virtue signal. It was a slap in the face to every qualified Democrat, many of whom would have had a chance to defeat Trump (a low bar if there ever was one).
> It’s worth noting that Adams, once a moderate libertarian/ Republican but more recently a purveyor of far-right paranoia, has long reveled in provocative statements (for instance, that a Joe Biden victory in the 2020 election would lead to Republicans being hunted down). In this case, he was responding to a Rasmussen poll asking whether people agreed with the statement, “It’s okay to be white.” Among Black respondents, 26% said they disagreed either strongly or somewhat, while 21% weren’t sure. From this, Adams deduced that nearly half of all Black Americans don’t think it’s okay to be white and presumably hate white people.
> In fact, in addition to doubts about Rasmussen’s sampling methods, the question itself is misleading. “It’s okay to be white” is a slogan long used as a seemingly innocuous “code” by white supremacists and popularized by internet trolls a few years ago. Most likely, many Black people in the survey had some vague knowledge of this background or realized they were being asked a trick question of sorts. More than one in four white respondents (27%) also declined to endorse the statement.
> Adams could have acknowledged his error. Instead, he dug in his heels, improbably claimed that he was using “hyperbole” to illustrate that it’s wrong to generalize about people by race, and seemed to take pride in his “cancellation” (which he can afford financially). He has also found a troubling number of more or less mainstream conservative defenders, including Twitter owner Elon Musk and highly popular commentator Ben Shapiro. On Twitter, Shapiro acknowledged that Adams’ rant was racist — only to add that “if you substituted the word ‘white’ for ‘black’ ” in it, you would get “a top editorial post at the New York Times.”
To call the whole "it's ok to be white" thing "code" is a reach. The whole point of it was to call out the hypocrisy and, potentially, racism of anyone who was offended by such a benign statement. That's not code, and it was extremely obvious at the time the intent.
It started as a trolling campaign in 2017 from 4chan's /pol/. It spread outside of 4chan mostly due to David Duke and The Daily Stormer. It might have some history even longer than that because in 2001 it was used as a title track by a white power music group called Aggressive Force and was also found in 2005 fliers by United Klans of America
Wow, as someone who has always heard he's a raging racist, that (with context in other comment) is just.... not super racist? It's much less bad than I expected.
I am Korean-American. If 47% of any group of people were unsure if it's "okay to be Asian" I would sure as hell avoid that group of people.
Advising members of your race to avoid contact with another race including moving to neighborhoods with a low proportion of that race is not super racist?
the context was black people hating and attacking white people so he’s like “ok then I’ll stay out of your way” and somehow that was racist, I think if you’re not aware that some culture pockets and mindsets like this do exist it might seem more racist because it would seem like he’s talking about everyone on earth just for being black but that’s clearly absurd and he was always a smart analytical guy so there’s no way that’s what he meant
The context was one poll of 130 black Americans in which 26% responded “disagree” to the question, and in response he told all white people to stay away from all black people.
> It becomes racist when the motivation is a prejudice toward the race inherently.
It becomes racist when you spread negative racial stereotypes. Which the statements were doing, unless the survey number was 100% and the sample size was the population size. And neither were.
Also, important context: The statement in question is a white supremacist slogan [0][1][2], much like "White Power!". Is anyone who doesn't agree with the phrase "White Power!" a racist, too, because that must mean that they seek to deny power to white people? Does not agreeing with the slogan "White Power!" mean you will kill all white people?
Black people are more likely to have sickle cell anemia. Providers are instructed to consider this diagnosis more likely when the patient is black. This is a negative stereotype based on a non-universal observation. If this is considered racist, so be it. "Racist" is not a useful descriptor at that point.
Anyway, there's no sense arguing over the terms. I find what he said to be non-heinous. I'm sure this bothers you, but I'm ok with that.
If you were to say "stay away from black people, all of them have sickle cell anemia and will kill you", it would most certainly be racist.
That's setting aside that we're specifically talking about a survey question gauging levels of agreement with a White Supremacist slogan, a la "White Power!".
Anyway, there's no sense arguing over the terms. Negative stereotyping is the most basic form of racism. I'm sure that bothers you, but I'm ok with that.
This is a pretty insane attempt to rationalize an incredibly racist remark and it's not going to work the way you think it will. It's not even worthwhile to try and address your arguments.
There's a lot of context around stuff he said. It seems to me that people are very eager to tag people with labels from others. I don't get the impression that others have seen many of his YouTube videos.
It's valuable to maybe watch the episodes and make your own mind up.
To be fair (RIP my fake internet points) - we spent the better part of the last 15 years hearing about how we needed special “safe spaces” for all the minorities. So if they are asking for self-segregation what are we to conclude? The sword cuts both ways…
There's a place for oppressed groups to get together to discuss things, but for the most part, various forms of segregation, even when well intended, are a very bad idea. Sometimes people innovate segregation for "good" reasons. This could be regarded as a conservative turn within a minority group. Strictly following that logic leads us to the same place.
That we see someone on Hacker News (of all places) repeating this smear validates Adams' repeated statements on his video podcast that he had a valid defamation claim against the hate group that pushed this smear.
The man just died and random people are repeating smear campaigns against him that are directly contrary to what his actual beliefs were.
Adams: "I'm going to back off from being helpful to Black America because it doesn't seem like it pays off. I get called a racist. That's the only outcome. It makes no sense to help Black Americans if you're white. It's over. Don't even think it's worth trying. I'm not saying start a war or do anything bad. Nothing like that. I'm just saying get away. Just get away."
"So I realized, as you know I've been identifying as Black for a while, years now, because I like to be on the winning team"
"But as of today I'm going to re-identify as White, because I don't want to be a member of a hate group, I'd accidentally joined a hate group."
"The best advice I would give to White people is to get away hell away from Black people, just get the fuck away. Wherever you have to go, just get away. Because there's no fixing this, this can't be fixed, you just have to escape. So that's what I did, I went to a neighborhood where I have a very low Black population"
Casting helping black people as a lost cause is not him deciding not to be an ally. It's him literally spreading racist rhetoric about black people as a whole
I'm not sure I would describe this as "deciding to not actively ally":
"So I realized, as you know I've been identifying as Black for a while, years now, because I like to be on the winning team"
"But as of today I'm going to re-identify as White, because I don't want to be a member of a hate group, I'd accidentally joined a hate group."
"The best advice I would give to White people is to get away hell away from Black people, just get the fuck away. Wherever you have to go, just get away. Because there's no fixing this, this can't be fixed, you just have to escape. So that's what I did, I went to a neighborhood where I have a very low Black population"
I'm not sure if the whole thing isn't a bit unfair. Lots of people in America want to live in fancy low crime neighbourhoods rather than getto like but know not say a lot of their thinking so as to not be cancelled. The "ok to be white" thing was based on some dumb 4chan trolling, and quite likely got misinterpreted.
I am always genuinely curious when someone interprets something that is blatantly racist to me as something not. What about what Scott said was not racist? How do you define racism?
It starts by believing that there are distinct human races (which there are not). That alone makes most US Americans racist based on language alone. No (sane) German would nowadays speak of "Rasse" to describe someone with a different skin color.
Then, of course, racism consists of the believe that some races are intrinsically less valuable (in whatever sense) than others. I didn't see Scott Adams voice that part. But I might have missed it or it might have been implied.
But it's important to note that US identity politics of the last couple of decades looks increasingly weird to me as an outsider in any case.
Using "Rasse" as a direct dictionary translation and then saying that it doesn't have the same cultural connotation in another culture is nonsensical. The term "race" means something in the context of American culture, which is due to our troubled history. And Adams' comments are also in the context of that same culture.
But I believe some other countries have their own challenges living up to their nominal multi-ethnic ideals. Surely if I pop open a copy of Der Spiegel and start commenting about the finer points of an immigration policy proposal from an American perspective, I am going to get something wrong.
"It starts by believing that there are distinct human races (which there are not). . That alone makes most US Americans racist based on language alone. "
Sorry, but no.
The scientific community has moved away from 'race' in the biological sense (although there is debate) but the sociological construct of race, which is what we refer to in this context, obviously exists.
When a person 'self identifies' as Black, or Asian or White - that is 'race' - in the 'social construct' sense and it's perfectly accepted and normal - the recognition of that does not make one racist.
It's clear as day, and it's hard to understand that someone could be confused by this.
It's literally on the census form.
'Race' is a cultural euphemism for broader ethnicity.
AKA 'European = White' - 'African = Black' - more or less.
These are not arbitrary groups of 'self identification' like 'emo' or 'punk'.
These groups are even self organizing - every single US city is built around small enclaves of groups - they pop right out on urban maps.
We've been fighting tribal wars since the dawn of time, it's not hard to imagine how the 'Flemish' vs. 'Dutch' is not going to extend to 'European vs. African'.
Elon Musk, on twitter, 2 days ago, was interjecting on this horrible bit of 'race war' nonsense, talking about 'blacks eviscerate whites' etc..
Again - while there's feeble support for the notion of 'race' in the field of biology (although I think it's more controversial than stated), we obviously have cultural foundations around those concepts.
Honestly - this kind of argument is plausibly the 'worst thing' about HN. I don't understand how something so common and obvious could be devoid in the face of some, odd, hair-splitting rhetoric.
From what I understood (and I might be misinterpreting or applying a too sympathetic filter) Scott was upset because of the spread of a political ideology (identity politics) and because of its tangible impacts on society (for example DEI policies). The entire tirade against black people starts from commenting an opinion poll according to which a sizable proportion of black interviewees disagrees with the statement "it's OK to be white"- which, applied to any other ethnic group, would be pure and blatant racism. So his reaction is that of someone who's upset and disappointed at learning that he's despised by some group of people for his ethnicity, and advises to just stay away from those who harbour these sentiments.
Thanks for the context. I checked Wikipedia for more details from the slogan and here is what it says:
> In a February 2023 poll conducted by Rasmussen Reports, a polling firm often referred to by conservative media, 72% of 1,000 respondents agreed with the statement "It's okay to be White". Among the 130 black respondents, 53% agreed, while 26% disagreed, and 21% were unsure. Slate magazine suggested that some negative respondents may have been familiar with the term's links with white supremacy.
Scott was a rather intelligent person with an MBA from UC Berkeley. How do you go from a sample of 130 black people a majority who agree with the slogan and only a minority against (less than a quarter). To all black people? Is that not an extreme overreaction?
It is indeed, but I think it makes sense to see it in the context of the culture wars. You can be upset at 47% of respondents to a poll disagreeing or being unsure that it's ok to be from your ethnic group; but that compounds with being upset at the perceived folly of a cultural movement that denies this is wrong or even encourages this way of thinking. It's the usual polarization mechanism, where apparent extremism of one side is so upsetting that it fuels or justifies an equally extreme reaction on the other.
So again, I don't think it makes sense to judge these statements in a vacuum as if they were well thought and considered. They are momentary angry reactions to a perceived wrong.
I have momentary angry reactions to things. Sometimes they're quite ridiculous. As a rule, I don't put them on the internet. When, despite my better judgement, I do, I feel I have an obligation to correct the record afterwards.
> I feel I have an obligation to correct the record afterwards.
And, are you sure he didn't? While the media is full of his supposedly racist comments, it's much harder to find any follow-up. Here's one:
"[...] he offered a “reframe” to allow people to get out of what he called a “mental trap” of a worsening racial divide in America.
“We’ve literally monetized racism so that everybody can be a little bit madder at each other,” Adams said. “If you monetize racial divide, you’re only going to get more of it.”
Faulting the “energy” he put into his comments, Adams said he can understand why people came to the conclusion that he literally meant what he was saying. He disavowed racism — “always have, always will,” he said — but went on to offer “context” about other “racist” things that he approves of.
“For example, historically Black colleges. Feels a little racist, totally approve,” Adams said. “Black History Month? Feels a little bit racist to some people, totally approve. Black people should get their own month; makes perfect sense in light of American history.”
During a segment of the show where viewers call in, a Black teacher in Missouri who said she was a longtime fan of the “Dilbert” comic strip said she was hurt by the comments. She asked Adams how she’s supposed to explain this kind of rhetoric to her students.
Adams suggested she tell them to stop looking backward and start looking forward. “Tell your students that they have a perfect path to success as long as they get good grades,” he said. “[...] if they employ strategy, and don’t look backwards, just strategy, they’ll do great. Now, there’ll still be way too much systemic racism, but you’ll be able to just slice through it like it didn’t exist.” [1]
Etc. Is anyone interested in this? Apparently, no.
I'm not sure he didn't. But I would really, really like to believe he did: and I don't do a good job drawing accurate conclusions from large corpora when I really, really want to reach a particular conclusion. I'd appreciate it if somebody else did that work.
Context matters. For a more recent example consider the slogan "Black Lives Matter" (BLM) and the slogan "All Lives Matter" (ALM). Separately both are fine.
But some people, especially in white supremacist and adjacent circles, who had never used "All Lives Matter" before started using it as a response to "Black Lives Matter".
The implication was the BLM was asking for special treatment for Black people. In reality what BLM was saying was that Black lives matter too (in retrospect maybe they should have actually included "too" in the slogan), and ALM as a response to that is essentially dismissing BLM's concerns.
Semi related is why we have a Black History Month but no White History Month in the US. Every month is a de facto white history month.
Black person here, and I too am finding this thread confusing.
Adams here was doing one of two things, either being blatantly racist or (perhaps the more generous, and perhaps more likely) being extremely bad at comedy?
It is of course "possible" to comedically play around with "what team am I on," but you have to be good at it or you look like -- if not racist -- a completely oblivious weirdo, and he was obviously one of the two here?
It'd be a shame if an asteroid struck earth tomorrow as well.
But given limited resources, we tend not to devote a ton of resources to every possible tail risk since there's millions of them.
Europe should focus on building domestic tech capacity for other reasons (our own future prosperity being one), but being worried about Microsoft Word access over some silly news headlines is not one of them.
Every single productivity suite can open/modify word docs and powerpoints and excel formats. This is not a huge issue.
The US doesnt recognize many of the bodies you would use as enforcement against aggressive action on EU bought US products. Or for some it does, it gives itself immunity from them like the ICJ.
Also considering the US's unilateral and often violent and aggressive and illegal way of doing things, especially with this administration, I think we're a bit past hypothetical meteor-like hypotheticals.
At this point any usage of destructive leverage the USA has over Europe should be seen as a real possibility, if not a likely one, when it comes to negotiation with or the expansionist desires of the USA.
Again, pulling Microsoft Office from the EU would be an extremely minor nuisance (libre office can open the same formats) at the expense of the US's national champion ever being used by any country outside the US ever again.
This is never going to happen (killing Microsoft would not be seen favorably by anyone in the current or future administration) and even if this magically did happen, it would barely cause a blip in the (lack of) productivity in the EU's performative planning meetings about future meetings where nothing happens.
On the list of things to worry about I would put this dead last.
This performative, melodramatic nonsense you're spewing here is doing us no good when ultimately our biggest threat is in the east, which you will happily continue ignoring as they eat our private sector and tax base.
"Orange man bad" is not a delusion I want to see spread any further in Europe. Turn off the news and start thinking rationally again please.
Didn’t the International Criminal Court went through a test run of this which shows it’s at least feasible [0].
While MS didn’t cut off the whole organization and try to soften the language around what they did, it seems they could be compelled to do so under more strict executive sanctions.
I don’t think an entire institution would suddenly come crashing to its knees but it would certainly be a pressing problem to be facing if the US or some other state actor was also mounting some other form of pressure or attack.
The US Implemented sanctions on the ICJ and they have to emergency migrate out of their O365 tenant. The US also recently stationed the former EU commissioner who was the architect of the Digital Markets Act.
So while unlikely, it is not a huge jump for the Trump administration to try sanctioning EU institutions they don't like.
> unite them without raising a new (local) software-dictator
If you're afraid that one country might create a better software product/company and win the market and this would become 'unfair,' you've already lost the plot.
Instead of harnessing the best talent the EU has to offer, you're making sure they never get off the ground in the name of 'fairness.' Tall poppy syndrome in the extreme.
I'm sorry but the free market-denial that's become endemic among European central planners is getting wildly irrational at this point. Every year we creep closer to USSR-level government spending as % of GDP, crowding out private sector activity.
Do you understand that the entire tax base of the EU is dependent on private sector businesses competing with each other to offer better products and services? Unfairness and exceptionalism and its winners are what funds our entire way of life.
We can redistribute some of the earnings from the winners to the losers after the fact (as we already do at 50% on average). But we absolutely need to have the market competition to drive value in the first place for there to be anything to redistribute!
That's an interesstingly delusional take, considering Open Source would support the free market in this specific case.
> If you're afraid that one country might create a better software product/company and win the market and this would become 'unfair,' you've already lost the plot.
That's not how this market works. With government, many projects do not make the deal because they have the better offer or superiour product, but because the company is better at playing the administration, which usually comes down to "investing more money". Open Source and open standards can remove some of the leverages they use, enabling smaller companies to play on a bigger field, and thus improving the market overall.
And with the actual political situation in Europe, there is also the beneficial sideeffect that more players in the market, and less dependecy from single point of failures, will allow everyone to raise their survival-rate in case of hostile actions.
> - government decision making is corrupt/inefficient (they would not pick the best product, only the company that bribed them the most)
That's an strangly simple view. You think playing politics can only mean bribing them?
> government directly funding software development would not suffer from the same issues with government being corrupt/inefficient?
The public sector is not a single unified hivemind. There are multiple different levels of organisation which are each working togeher and fighting each other all at the same time. But a common problem for them all is, the less rules for them exist, the more likely they will make their own descisions.
You're talking past my criticism and haven't addressed the core logic flaw in your argument.
If government is competent enough to build its own software solutions (and these creations would be valuable enough that open sourcing them would create opportunities for startups in the private sector as you've claimed!)...then they are also competent enough to buy the correct software product from a European private company.
If they cannot be trusted to buy the right software for themselves without the process being corrupted, they sure as hell can't be trusted to BUILD that software from the ground up (a much harder task!).
I find it endlessly fascinating how governments always get lost in the symptoms of the problems at hand instead of addressing the underlying problem itself.
The EU has no viable software industry because there's no real single market to fundraise from and sell into (no single capital market, no single language market, no single regulatory market, etc).
The lack of domestic EU software/hardware products sits entirely downstream of that issue. The open source community will not magically solve this problem for them.
What if we stopped wasting time on anything that is not solving the core issue. The symptoms will take care of themselves after you solve the disease.
How is this not solving the core issue? You need to do both. Ensure the software is made (pay devs), and if you're funding this, make sure it is licensed as a public good (free, oss).
The problem with putting on band-aids over core structural issues is the government projects are going to run into the same fragmentation issues that private sector ones have. Open source is not a magic wand you can wave to fix that.
You only need to the solve the core issue. Unless you believe humans born on the European continent are inherently less intelligent or motivated than those born on American soil, then quite literally the problem will solve itself.
All humans are the same species and respond to the same incentives. Just create similar incentives here and stop trying to top-down solve all the symptoms with bandaids after the fact. It just doesn't work.
Name me one example of EU government created software that people have ever chosen to use voluntarily. Or heck, even one that people are forced to use but isn't downright terrible compared to a private alternative.
> The EU has no viable software industry because there's no real single market to fundraise from and sell into (no single capital market, no single language market, no single regulatory market…
Yes incentives matter. They are not the only factor when figuring out the outcome. Competitive structures, and the type of good being traded has a bearing as well.
Software is not like physical goods. Given the marginal costs of making additional units of software is effectively nil, and that network effects tend to lock users in, you will see the rise of behemoths that shrug off competition.
You see more competition when it comes to startups than a stalwart like Excel or word.
I can of course be wrong - but For major daily drivers type software (Gmail, word, etc.) , the incumbents aren’t going to be moved by simply increasing competition.
I think you are just decribing one factor that caused the problem. There is many a detailed analysis, the most respected being the one by Draghi.
Previously this also wasn't much of a problem. The US tech companies were international companies and less "US" companies. Now they aligned themselves with the US regime and are e.g. a supply chain vulnerability and properly taxing them causes issues in national defence (via Ukraine). I for one did not anticipate this own-goal w.r.t. Europe by the US.
I love tailwind, but I think it’s disingenuous for Adam to claim that “AI” killed the tailwind UI kit business.
Ultimately it was Radix/Shadcn (which uses tailwind for styling of course) that killed the need to buy Tailwind’s UI kits by offering all these primitives with good default styling for free.
Also, the tailwind UI stuff feels pretty dated at this point in comparison to what’s offered in other free UI libraries these days.
Yea I agree that free UI kits like ShadCN basically blew everyone else away. I mean ShadCN has over 100k Stars on Github which is more than even Tailwind. So you can imagine the popularity. Having said that, I do think that AI is a factor as well because most of these components can now be coded by AI as well.
For example, I now routinely use AI to create UI components and my prompt usually includes "use ShadCN like component here" and even give them specific shadcn component names. The result is usually 90% good enough to start with.
Agreed. Also if they had really been trying to drive ARR, they would have made Tailwind UI a subscription/yearly licensing thing instead of a one-time purchase.
There's a reason companies like Adobe/Microsoft switched away from one-time purchase software, and that reason is that it is exhausting and eventually impossible to sustain a business where you have to hunt for brand new customers every single month just to keep the lights on.
So you created a policy that takes money from the lower/working classes and those on welfare (restricting rental supply for those who rent) and transfers it as a tax subsidy to the middle class (who own) and are offering this up as "good" policy?
You've also encouraged your middle class to massively over-leverage themselves to a single house/apartment by creating a huge tax subsidy for them (from 30-75%), which will no doubt continue placing upward pressure on house prices and also create risks if interest rates increase. Why would you not take the biggest loan the bank will offer, given interest rates are quite low in Europe and you will not be taxed on most of the value of that property you can acquire with leverage?
Crazy thought, did your politicians ever think about the idea of NOT subsidizing the demand side at all? If the issue is the price of housing, subsidizing demand for it in any way is going to make that problem worse!
Anyone who thinks an intricate illustration of a quill and ink communicates to the user "Hey this app is our Microsoft Word"...is not thinking about what function an icon is supposed to serve.
It's like comparing a road sign to an 18th century painting and saying "LOOK HOW FAR WE'VE FALLEN!"
These are not serious people.
reply