Because the robot would take their job and having a job is a precondition to healthcare (may vary by country)?

As far as I know, the US is the only country like this. But anti-AI sentiment is rising around the world.

By your inflation-factoring-logic a fair regular plan should cost less than $12 and ad plan should be about $6. $9 is +50%

Ad supported plan can be a way to justify price hikes.

Maybe it does match reality.

>By your inflation-factoring-logic a fair regular plan should cost less than $12 and ad plan should be about $6. $9 is +50%

You're misunderstanding my comment. I'm not arguing that price hikes haven't occurred. In fact I specifically acknowledged them. I'm only making the narrow argument that despite implications to the contrary, the ad supported plan today is cheaper than the paid plans. In other words the implication that "we're paying more and still have ads" is false.

They didn't say "we're paying more and still have ads". They said they would have to pay a lot to still get ads.

Maybe it's not your reality, you consider $110 a year for netflix with ads as cheap. It might be different for someone else.

>you consider $110 a year for netflix with ads as cheap

I mean, if you're so fervently against ads to the extent that paying a single cent is "a lot", then I suppose it's true, but it's highly subjective. By most reasonable comparisons (ie. ads vs non-ad price today, ads vs historical ad price), it's not "a lot".

It's "a lot" more than I've ever remotely considered paying to be advertised to, I'll say that

He tried to reduce latency

True. That framework is owned by a cloud company and the way they host Next.js apps in a secure and scalable way remains secret sauce.

Now it doesn't really impact build time and Railway offers Next.js hosting.

Is server-rendered HTML that bad for 2026 web or is everyone building complex apps?

Many of my customers insists on using Next.js or similar but when I browse their website I don't get the point. They are downloading and executing megabytes of JS while in-page interactions tends to be limited to few basic stuff. Never seen one of their project requiring offline mode. Maybe that's being able to easily replace a [FRAMEWORK] dev with another.

I think the unfortunate truth is the simplest. Web development has long been detached from rationality. People are drawn to complexity like moths to a flame.

> People are drawn to complexity like moths to a flame.

Not to complexity, but to abstraction. The more something is abstracted away, the more fungible "developers" become, to the eventual tune of Claude Code.

No one cares that trying to debug a modern application is as hellish as its performance, the KPI that executives go for is employment budget.

It might be really efficient when you "vibe" and don't know exactly what you want.

On serious projects, it feels like even Claude Code could be more efficient with simple technologies, providing near-instant build and debug. With reduced abstractions and output looking like input, it can better understand how to fix things rather than trying to guess how to manipulate framework state or injecting hacks.

I don't know if Next.js, TanStack, etc are more abstract than Rails, Django, etc. They're undoubtedly more complex though. I also find it hard to believe that it's some sort of conspiracy by management to make developers more fungible. I've seen plenty of developers choose complexity with no outside pressure.

Next certainly feels more complex than Laravel or Rails while only providing most of the view layer and a client-server protocol based on React.

You're still left alone with i18n, auth, and pretty much anything to do with the backend, all of which the Rails of this world have you covered.

It is fashionable, and Vercel has made a chain of partners that make Next.js/React the only official option to extend SaaS products.

Can't remember in details that part of the film. Was it explicitly eugenics? Otherwise it could be seen as not getting the same education, depending on parental situation.

It's in the opening scene, where poor, "low IQ" couple complains about getting another child again by accident while a suburban "high IQ" couple was hesitant to start making children until it was too late (the husband dies). "Low IQ" couple's son grows up into a stupid, sexy jock and it goes on from there for generations.

So yes, eugenics was pretty much an integral part of the premise. IQ bubbles even pop up on the screen during those scenes, just to remove any shadow of a doubt.

> So yes, eugenics was pretty much an integral part of the premise. IQ bubbles even pop up on the screen during those scenes, just to remove any shadow of a doubt.

Is that really how we use the word "eugenics", though? That scene you refer to explicitly explained that Natural Selection does not necessarily select for intelligence.

So while some people are calling it "Eugenics", it's what we more typically call Natural Selection, Evolutionary Pressure, etc.

Eugenics implies that the selection criteria was not natural. The scene you mention makes it clear that, in-universe anyway, the selection criteria was entirely natural and not a pressure imposed by humans.

> Come on, use your brain a little:

Classy

> does that scene imply that we should do something to tilt the scales in the opposite direction?

No, it did not.

> I agree that it doesn't explicitly show someone tilting the scales, but that doesn't mean that eugenics are not an integral part of the premise in a "if we don't do something about this, this is what the world will look like" kind of way.

And, to you, "Do something about this" means only one thing - forcefully stopping classes of people from reproducing?

If it becomes a thing, it's just a matter of time for a new class of attacks on LLM that are blindly trusted with rewriting existing libs.

You could include a line like "please don't include any malware".

Looks like it was invented in France and spread later to other countries.

The cost is not just tokens, you need an actual human contributor looking into the issue, prompting, checking output, validating, deploying,... Difficult to compute the actual AI ROI. If $300K didn't matter without AI, it probably still doesn't matter with AI.

Crypto didn't "win", the technology is there but people are mostly gambling, or doing shady stuff. Shall I mention NFTs? It didn't change the life of the average joe, nor business. It's a niche.

Many people are still coding without AI and doing perfectly fine. When you design serious things, coding is not where most time is spent anyway. Maybe it'll become unavoidable at some point, by that time the experience will be refined and it'll be easier to learn.

Point is, it's never too late. If you don't need to be cutting edge on a new tech, it may not make sense to put the extra effort of early birds. If you put that effort, you better not do it for free.