People in other professions do that all the time. Doctors go to serve in poor places so that they can have medical care, carpenters volunteer to help make furniture and structures for charity projects, and so on. It simply is not the case that programmers are the only professionals who will donate labor for the sake of the communal good.

I was also there. It isn't rose-colored glasses. The tech truly was better back in the 90s and 2000s. Not perfect, certainly, but it was made by people who gave a damn and were trying to actually make good things. It wasn't like today, where most software is slop (not necessarily AI slop, but slop nonetheless) churned out by companies whose decisions are made solely by how much profit they can squeeze out no matter if the quality tanks.

No, we really did lose something along the way.

When I make open source software, it's a gift to the commons for the enrichment of all mankind. It doesn't cost me, or humanity, one bit if a big tech company benefits from it. The idea that companies shouldn't be able to benefit from contributions to the commons is not really justifiable.

Rerum Novarum is an absolute banger. I had the pleasure of discovering it thanks to the discourse surrounding Leo XIV choosing his papal name, and I'm really glad I did. Leo XIII had some really insightful things to say about the problems surrounding workers' rights.

All that really matters is that it exists. If you really care about the quality of your camera, you're going to want to get a dedicated camera. For everyone else (i.e. basically everybody except photographers), literally any phone camera is as good as another.

Giving an LLM the ability to interact with your system is, in fact, a mistake. One that it turns out a lot of people are foolish enough to make, and they don't care at all about the predictable consequences of that mistake.

That is certainly true. Anyone who gives an LLM access to their systems is a fool who will soon find themselves out of a job.

> LLMs are a tool like every other. Only that it's non deterministic.

Which is exactly what makes them not like other tools. A non deterministic tool is not fit for any serious purpose.

The vast, vast majority of programmers are going to be writing software where there are only a handful of threads (if that). The "I need thousands of concurrent executions" case is simply not relevant to most people.

You do realize what servers do in parallel right? Async/await allows ASP.NET to scale beyond 1 thread per request.

Are you going to put multiple customer’s data in the same OS process?

Did you know you can get even more performance if you manually manage memory and don’t use virtual functions?

The best alternative, by far, is don't require async. Async is much harder to work with than other methods of gaining concurrency, and its benefits (like not needing OS context switches) are irrelevant to most developers. There is no good reason that the majority of Rust libraries force their users into async in all its messiness.