I don't think anyone is simply envious. People mean to point out that allowing individual accumulation of wealth to extreme degrees lead to runaway structural problems. Billionaires and companies existing and providing wages are not inextricably intertwined. It's entirely possible to have one while preventing the other. The idea that the only way you can incentivize individuals to start companies is to allow them to accumulate so much wealth that they become tiny kings is patently absurd. The world has thousands of companies and founders who happily sustain their businesses without ever reaching this ungodly and idiotic level of uber wealth.
> The idea that the only way you can incentivize individuals to start companies is to allow them to accumulate so much wealth that they become tiny kings is patently absurd. The world has thousands of companies and founders who happily sustain their businesses without ever reaching this ungodly and idiotic level of uber wealth.
And how many of those companies and founders have given back to society at the scale that these uber wealthy people have? Entire new economies have been built up.
> ungodly and idiotic level of uber wealth.
This is still just envy. You should try to prove that you're being oppressed by the systems these billionaires have created because we don't have to go very far back to observe when these systems and economies did not exist. I'll remind you that for example, in NYC before Uber, taxi medallions were being sold for over a million dollars and people were going into debt just for the opportunity to drive a cab. If you go far back enough creating a virtual store front to sell your ideas and goods was a gate that was actually very high. Thanks to the systems that are in place now you have the opportunity to spin this up for very little risk and prove out your idea. Structural problems such as what? The idea that wealth is power? That's the same structural problem that has always existed, except that there are more players than ever before. You can launch an entire grass roots political campaign on social media for free. Does that sound like a system that oppresses or is that a system that has given you opportunity to enact change?
Even the barrier to invest in companies and participate directly in the profits and value creation has been erased or lowered. Hundreds of millions of people are directly benefitting from this everyday. It is now a few simple clicks of a button and you're in. Who lowered that barrier? It was the billionaires. And yes, because they did that they will get an asymmetrical reward because their impact and value creation for society is asymmetrical to yours.
You're not doing this, but when you try to have this conversation amongst the general population what is the response? Once you start poking holes at the concept it always reverts to "you're a bootlicker", "why are you defending billionaires, they don't care about you". These responses highlight envy, not reality or the desire to be objective.
Deep down a lot people either don't realize how much free will and agency they now have in this society or they are just living with contempt because everywhere they look they see people that are using that free will to accomplish more than them. It's lack and envy all the way through.
I wouldn't necessarily categorize giving people opportunity to do underpaid, tenuous, non-career, zero-mobility gig work as "giving back to society" nor would I classify the unregulated harms of social media, phone additions, etc. as social good either. That's not to say some of these things aren't also good in many ways, but I also still don't understand why you think this somehow leads to a moral or social justification for unbounded levels of amassed wealth to a single individual.
> Structural problems such as what? The idea that wealth is power? That's the same structural problem that has always existed, except that there are more players than ever before.
So your response to issues such as most people being unable to have a single living wage, rising homelessness, unaffordable housing, is "shrug wealth is power". This is not some kind of inviolable law of nature. We as human beings defining the terms of the game, can set up some legislation.
Learn history. America specifically has combated very similar issues in the past and curbing unimpeded accumulation and breaking up monopolies led to more innovation more diversity in the market and a better distribution of wealth. America has taxed the wealthiest classes more in the past and it wasn't a disaster. Look up the new deal.
> You're not doing this, but when you try to have this conversation amongst the general population what is the response?
Who are you conversing with, me, or the general population? What do you mean when you try to ascribe a belief to the general population? Have you done polling on this? Or are you basing this on media? What are you actually talking about? Why are you so confident in arguing against some perceived hypothetical belief you think "the general population" holds? How do you know there aren't more people who actually agree with your perspective?
> Who lowered that barrier? It was the billionaires
No. Scores of laborers employed by the billionaires lowered the barrier. Yes, many of the billionaires begin with a great idea, but there's no reason having an idea justifies having unbounded wealth. All enterprises depend on legions of people to actually materialize production. There is nothing written in nature that states that the person risking upfront capital should always be compensated more than the people who make production a reality, nor is there any corollary that states that the accumulation permitted should be completely unbounded.
You have convinced yourself that anyone not agreeing with your own belief is ruled by nothing but an emotional or psychological state rather than rational, but different, perspective. This is a perfect way to be a stubborn ass and ensure that no one will ever change your mind. It is anti-intellectualism at its finest. I hope one day you realize how foolish you are being about this.
Since you seem to be into super-reductive arguments, here's mine: we are all clearly hyper-dependent on one another on this planet. There is no reason people who make lots of money shouldn't have to give a reasonable portion of it back to the government and country that they draw labor, customers, and much more from daily. There is no reason that accumulation should be permitted without bound. It is pointless and leads to problems. We can and should argue for reasonable limits or at the very least taxation on massive wealth.
As for me, no envy here. I live comfortably and I am happy with what means I have, something most billionaires don't ever seem to experience. However, I also have eyes and functioning neurons so when I clearly see other human beings unable to afford basic necessities without feeling tremendous stress and pressure and then I see certain high-profile billionaires blowing money on dumb shit, underpaying and abusing workers (piss bottles) and more, I can understand why people want better guardrails in place, and no, wanting to limit the degree to which random people who got lucky in the market can exploit you is not envy.
If they were saying that kings shouldn't have the unchecked right to execute people, this response would be akin to "Oh, you just wish you could kill anyone. Your argument is invalid."
Not really. The person saying that billionaires shouldn't exist is just failing to describe why that number is so mystical or interesting to them. If billionaires don't exist are we saying that people worth 500 million won't have power? you can keep doing this but the end result is the same. Power is asymmetrical and the system is self balancing. Those that have more wealth have more power. It's that simple. If you want to make wealth irrelevant then at least come up with a real system where wealth does not exist, because power is an intrinsic property of wealth.
The idea that you can distribute wealth is actually the tell for envy. You want to distribute power because you want power. And you won't be satisfied until that power reaches you, therefore you need to eliminate not just the billionaires, but after it trickles to centimillionaires and decamillionaires after that. If your premise is based on billionaires not existing because they have outsized power you're not going to be satisfied until that power eventually reaches where you are stationed in society.
It has nothing to do with billionaires and it has everything to do with people with more wealth than you having more power. That's envy. How far do you have to distribute before power is meaningless?
The truth is that there are more billionaires than ever before and that number is growing. It would seem that having power is becoming more democratized over time too. If we go back 500 years the number of people that had this level of power were limited to actual Kings. You are closer to a billionaire in your capabilities and agency in this society than a peasant was under an actual King. 500 years ago if you made a tiktok video about your King's private affairs and his properties while trying to tell everybody that the king doesn't deserve their power and the king should be taxed, you'd be executed in the town square. Yet somehow people that have the mindset that "billionaires should not exist" fail to convey how we've suddenly reached some tipping point where there's no going back.
Like saying, "There have never been more opportunities for commoners to become kings!" Okay, most of the people who say kings shouldn't exist will still feel that way, even if they could become king.
> You are closer to a billionaire in your capabilities and agency in this society than a peasant was under an actual King.
How much of that is because I live in a democratic republic, and not because billionaires exist? I guess you might say they're the same thing, but I believe there are free-enough societies with less wealth/power inequality than the US. I think I care more about the gap between top and bottom than about my own personal level of power, but of course it's hard to be objective.
It is harder to draw the line with money than with literal kingship, but I don't accept that we should change nothing and let unbounded power disparities exist.
Edit: More to the point of the original article, maybe I can accept their existence if we plugged all the holes they use to pay a very low percentage, as discussed in other comments. They may remain billionaires, but the tax law would treat them more like the rest of us than like kings.
I think there is a massive difference between wanting power and wanting freedom and security from undue exploitation and/or economic hardship.
Most people I know don't "want power". They just want to be able to afford basic necessities (food, housing, clothing) without feeling like they are on the brink of survival every day.
Billionaires are starting to take the heat because people are starting to recognize that the wealth created for these billionaires is 100% dependent on their labor, time, and sweat, yet many of them see fractions of fractions of what the billionaires make. If it's somehow unfair for the billionaires to have to pay the government a wealth tax it is equally unfair for said billionaires to withhold so much of the capital generated by their workforces for themselves.
yawn hack writer issues wealth-hoarding and inequality apologia.
Economics is simple. Resources are finite, and money plus markets preserve that finitude as an invariant (that's why it works as a store of value). If you sit on more money and accumulate more money a natural consequence is that someone else has less access to the finite resources available (either in actuality or in potentia), period, because you can accumulate enough to begin to dictate how much they can access (by having decision power around wages). There is no reason to assume private individual wealth-hoarders have public interest in mind, and indeed they have often proven that they don't. They want to maximize value at specific points in the system, which is the literal definition of instability and eventual collapse in chaos theory. You need to bring the system back to stability through structural intervention and regulation. Tax the rich. Cap individual accumulation. It's that simple. The world does need or benefit from kings, whether minted through politic or finance.
Many investments are considered a liquid asset precisely because they are basically money.
You're missing the point on a stupid technicality.
If I have more liquid and therefore more purchasing and capital power than you, I have access to more resources than you, and I am immediately in a position in which I can potentially exploit you (get you to labor to generate more resources in exchange for some of the capital I have, then retain most of all of the newly generated capital and production from your labor for myself while paying you a fraction of what's generated because you are in a position of immediate need (need access to necessities) and I wasn't).
This. Neural Nets have existed conceptually since the 1950s. They weren't realized materially and practically until later, but it's astonishing how ignorant people are of the history of AI.
But one of the reasons they switched was because the compiler upstream for the original language they used, Zig, wouldn't accept slop contributions they wanted to make for Bun perf. What will they do when they need to try to push a slop contribution upstream to rust?
At this point they will probably just fork yet again and maintain some vibe compiler.
Huh. I wonder if the original intent was to merge an AI generated PR to a high-profile project like Zig. It makes the headlines and generates hype. But that went embarassingly bad for them so they had "port Bun to Rust" as a backup.
They should make FullstackLang. It compiles English in .md to machine code that can directly run on the specialized hardware it designs for it that you have to 3d print at runtime. Every program gets its own custom hardware. Composability and reuse be damned. Pay the token masters for every thought you have
No, they've explicitly denied it.[0] However, they do regularly dig at how much faster their fork is[1][2] that they can't merge because of Zig's AI policy.
Funnily enough, iirc Foucault viewed a large part of his work as extending the style of investigation Neitzsche initiated in Genealogy of Morals.
I think Nietzsche is great. His prose is a breath of fresh air and he's arguably the greatest literary stylist among philosophers since the Greeks. Sartre was pretty good too, likely thanks to his ability as a novelist. Some later continental philosophers would have really benefited from reading his aphorism that good writers write to be understood.
I have a lot of issues with latter 20th cen continental (particularly french) philosophers, but of all of them Foucault is the last one anyone should have an issue with. While he's guilty of some of the pompous and needlessly intelligible stylistics this crew adopted, he at least has some pretty substantial ideas behind his work. Derrida and Lacan on the other hand....
As far as sociology goes, I think you probably realize claiming an entire field is bunk is dumb. In fact you are committing the very wrong you are apparently complying about (writing off the field of developmental psychology). I haven't heard of. a single beef between these two fields btw, must have been an odd textbook.
What's insubstantial about Lacan? There seems to be enough in there to give D&G, Zizek etc careers (as well as inspire a bunch of compelling media i.e. The Matrix)
All great things, but helping other philosophers have careers and inspiring cool art does not necessarily imply that you yourself had substantial philosophical concepts.
I'm aware: I was inviting your thoughts (this is a cramped space for a debate). For mine, reading Lacan directly is a chore (post-atom bomb academic arts can have a "use all the cool sciencey words" problem), but I find the Other/other and reworking of Freud's ego id etc thought-provoking.
Biopower is the most famous one, but I actually think his greatest contribution was to make philosophers pay more attention to the ways in which epistemic systems and ways of organizing knowledge are connected to political power.
I actually think his phd thesis "the history of madness" is his best work. It encapsulates much of the subject matter that would occupy him (knowledge and power) in a domain that's easier to understand than some of his later arguments, and it predates his adoption of a more contorted literary style (or maybe the translation is just better, idk).
Ian Hacking also has a great text that extends Foucault's work "Historical Ontology" that picks up many of the chief ideas in a far more lucid manner for those of us who aren't fans of the later continental style (which if I'm being honest, was always a little too concerned with being obtuse just to sound intelligent)
Yeah, believe me, I'm not a fan of the misapplication and misunderstanding of much of this work. It's a bitter lesson in why making one's ideas clear in straightforward prose is so essential. I think Foucault at least, could be absolved from the notion that he intended any kind of said misapplication. Some other philosophers however, I think we're just straight up hacks that exploited the vogue of confusing language and weak metalingual philosophizing (Derrida, coughcough). If only we got students to read Wittgenstein first and save them from all the sophist language games.
Just to volunteer an example: An editorial by Assange that explicitly called out the panopticon was on my mind today.
The rise of "meta glasses" and reading ICE also wishes to employ them was what reminded me of this I believe.
Sociology (like philosophy, like math) is one of these subjects were a good teacher makes all the difference. I guess true of any subject. Many people come away from a subject thinking it's bunk or not relevant to them for all sorts of reasons. Teachers are not meant to be babysitters or proctors they are supposed to offer context and connect the dots.
The amount of bad teachers (it is a hard job) is quite staggering. Education is in large part a mess because we've tried to scale a system that was designed for the very few to the very many without the proper investment.
The term/design is not his but he offered an interpretation or extrapolation inspired by the concept that was unique enough that if you mention panopticon in the context of Foucault it means something unique.
Sure, but you need to consider that, in this case we are talking about the language runtime. It isn't just some other library dep. It's basically the base layer of the stack. It has a huge blast radius. It is, imo, a nontrivial decision to swap runtimes. If problems emerge you can't easily plug some other runtime, that's a major technical decision and should be treated as such.
In the past at least you could assume the maintainers of the runtime had some kind of mental model of how it worked. In my view, with the way this rewrite has been approached, you can't assume that at all. It's good the test suite passes, but who knows how this will affect the evolution of the codebase? Do we even know if the code is good? How much is just slop? Tests do not test architecture. Is this new rewrite even going to be maintainable? How is the team going to get up to speed on a new codebase in a new language that the main author presumably doesn't even fully understand?
There are many reasons to be concerned. Treating this as no big deal would make me question one's ability to make assessments of technology. There's a world of difference between relying on gen AI heavily in products and leaf nodes of the stack, using it in a purely assistive way, and using it to drive a massive scale rewrite of a base component in a language the maintains team has an unproven amount of experience with. From a reliability standpoint the way this project was executed is completely preposterous, and it's very clearly a marketing stunt more than a sound technical decision on how to drive a project. It's not about the use of LLMs, it's about thee stupid and blatantly obvious generation of cognitive debt all to help sell claude. I'd have way fewer qualms if they used LLMs to do a rewrite in a way that retained developer understanding (i.e. not driven by one person and in such a short timespan that having a robust mental model, even for that person, is highly unlikely)
You're implying that reckless rewrites within the JS ecosystem are a novel event, or more specifically that surprise language changes over a short period of time are. And yet... I can think of at least six times in which exactly this has happened and little fuss was made because the polarizing element of "AI" was not involved. Not just JS to Typescript, but to Dart, Go, C, Rust, Zig, Nim etc.
From any reasonable perspective, this is business as usual in the house of cards we all operate in. Perhaps the sensationalization would be justified if the lang migration wasn't one of less correct -> enforced correctness by default?
To your point in general about maintainers holding a mental model of the runtime: I would challenge that to say that it is very likely that there is no developer who holds a complete mental model of an entire runtime at any given point. As with anything of this scale you understand individual parts in their entirety and have general assertions about the rest until specifically revisited, even if you are the sole developer. In this case specifically, Bun has been largely AI driven for quite a while anyway so it is even more unlikely that the developers ever had a complete picture in the first place. If you trusted them before, then nothing has changed.
It's not lost on me that code logic can be subtly incorrect even as tests are passing either, but there isn't exactly a lot of grey area in this particular context. Does your code compile or not? If it builds as expected, then your own unit tests will highlight the difference.
Developers use LLMs to migrate a million line codebase to a language that they have much less experience with in such a short amount of time that they likely do not have a good mental model of the migrates code.
At least the tests pass.
Only one person drove the migration, so the number of people that understand the new code is ~0.5 under the assumption there's no way the sole dev could build a mental model of fresh 1m code in 6 days.
This is code for a language runtime.
It's great that the tests pass but it's really hard for me to interpret this as anything other than horrible mismanagement of a promising project. When you sit this low in the stack this is grossly irresponsible and I have no idea why anyone would use Bun after this. You'd be literally adopting a runtime the devs presumably don't understand, keep in mind they now somehow need to evolve and maintain this in the future.
Hopefully this remains an experiment, or Bun has some plan for re-upping dev knowledge of the codebase. Sorry but a component with massive blast radius like a runtime isn't really a good candidate for vibe coding, no matter how good the AI is. I'd like the maintainers to actually understand their runtime, thanks.
They won't, they will continue to vibe code it until it collapses under them and the project fades into obscurity. Which it will regardless since it was acquired by Anthropic.
I feel like most of these applications all boil down to "Obsidian but with AI integration baked in up front". It'd be interesting to see approaches that actually rethink commonplaces of the experience (graph view etc) rather than just reproduce the same thing but "with ai"
reply