221–230 of 395 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I read properly this is explicitely targeting UE, Canada, UK and other countries with high wages and R&D and software engineering capabilities.
Yep, seems like this is an opaque tarrif. Other countries should use this when retaliating.
Not all countries will see that as a problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am Austrian. My entire education was dedicated to the rise of fascism and how it could happen and how to make sure it never happens again. I know what I'm seeing. Don't believe me? What about subject matter experts that decided to flee the country? https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/14/opinion/yale-canada-fasci... Or how about an excerpt from a book written based on post-WW2 interviews of Germans? Does any of that sou…
> They say, ‘It’s not so bad’ or ‘You’re seeing things’ or ‘You’re an alarmist.’ Ah, well in that case, it's clear to me Austria is actually the one on the brink of fascism. It's clear to me, having extensively eaten a lot of strudel (makes me an expert in Austria), that it's now a fascist country. And if you say: ‘It’s not so bad’ or ‘You’re seeing things’ or ‘You’re an alarmist.’ then clearly you're just in denial.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They say, ‘It’s not so bad’ or ‘You’re seeing things’ or ‘You’re an alarmist.’ Ah, well in that case, it's clear to me Austria is actually the one on the brink of fascism. It's clear to me, having extensively eaten a lot of strudel (makes me an expert in Austria), that it's now a fascist country. And if you say: ‘It’s not so bad’ or ‘You’re seeing things’ or ‘You’re an alarmist.’ then clearly you're just in denial.
Really grabbing at straws to dismiss the evidence of your eyes and ears here, huh?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This argument has a problem: > They say, ‘It’s not so bad’ or ‘You’re seeing things’ or ‘You’re an alarmist.’ It provides no way to distinguish between when the thing is happening and when it isn't. If people say you're an alarmist, by what mechanism do you evaluate whether they're correct?
And that is exactly the mechanism through which fascist regimes keep resistance down and dissenters in a state of self-doubt. People like the guy accusing me of being "hyper-propagandized" knowingly weaponize this uncertainty to become willing enablers.
It's like making the argument that denying an accusation is evidence that it's true. It's rubbish because people would also deny it if it was false.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You've lost me. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, could you rephrase your point in a more coherent way please? But also, yes, Austria was on the brink of fascism not too long ago. Our far-right party almost got to form a government and their plans were quite sinister. Thankfully, disaster was averted due to egos and greed - the far-right and center-right couldn't agree on who gets to pilfer to country more…
This argument has a problem: > They say, ‘It’s not so bad’ or ‘You’re seeing things’ or ‘You’re an alarmist.’ It provides no way to distinguish between when the thing is happening and when it isn't. If people say you're an alarmist, by what mechanism do you evaluate whether they're correct?
> Probably because you've seen it repeated so much in your hyper-propaganda bubble of reddit that you've started to believe it
So US will continue subsidizing its R&D while complaining the rest of the world is doing so? What changed then?
If you're going to subsidize anything why wouldn't it be R&D
Plus this puts pressure on manufacturing, as they will not be able to compete. So yeah, as a tool to boost knowledge economy it works but is it objectively a good thing to do I don't know.
It also classifies software development as R&D which together with immediate expensing for R&D undoes the Section 174 changes as far as I understand. “For purposes of this section, any amount paid or incurred in connection with the development of any software shall be treated as a research or experimental expenditure“ Page 303 of bill here https://www.congress.gov/119/bills/hr1/BILLS-119hr1eas.pdf Original article ab…
That's nuts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You've lost me. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, could you rephrase your point in a more coherent way please? But also, yes, Austria was on the brink of fascism not too long ago. Our far-right party almost got to form a government and their plans were quite sinister. Thankfully, disaster was averted due to egos and greed - the far-right and center-right couldn't agree on who gets to pilfer to country more…
Your entire argument boils to the fact that you live in Austria and that makes you an expert on fascism and if anyone tries to refute you then it immediately means they're in denial. Which is, of course, non-sensical.
I doubt if this will make much difference. Offshoring as a tactic emerged in the pandemic when companies realised that being “remote” works just as well. Sure, foreign R&D still gets amortized over 15 years (NPV ≈59 % of a full write-off, so you “lose” ~8.6 % of your R&D spend in present-value terms, and only 6.7 % of the cost is deductible in year 1, creating a 19.6 % cash-tax gap). But offshore wages are often 50–7…
> Offshoring as a tactic emerged in the pandemic when companies realised that being “remote” works just as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ive been coding 5+ hours a day almost every day for 15 years. i think ai will replace 70% of SWE in the near future. not employement, but 70% of the current work done by engineers
I don’t even spend 70% of my time coding. I suspect that’s common and looking at data it’s more like 25% on average. So even if it replaces 100% of coding (unlikely) that’s the extent of the gain.
And even with reviews you can currently plausibly automate only the code correctness check part, the juicy part of reviews is always manual testing of the change and doing the logical reasoning if the change is doing a meaningful thing. And no, the ticket with the spec is not a reliable source of this info for an LLM as it's always just a partial understanding of the concept.