> Seriously want to know what people really think...

(in a vacuum) i think we would all be saying thats amazing and fundamentally change the way we see ourselves and place in the universe (science fiction becomes science fact) and open new possibilities for research and discoveries

  >  find "life". So? Why is this important to people?

when there are more down-to-earth problems right in front of us, i get this as well; why not use that money to fund free college for a couple years for all citizens etc etc

that is to say, you have to be a good dev first and foremost, and no matter how much harnessing you do there is gonna be a limit to the quality of output by the user (otherwise why not just use a no-code tool instead)

(the ironic thing is tho, people starting out with just llms will probably never progress to 'good dev' in the first place...)

This is the one thing I'm curious about, what's the next generation of devs going to look like? Just a bunch of people who treat the codebase as a black box, pump out slop, and call it a day when the feature works?

I imagine there will be value in being able to understand every line of code for a while, because many (most?) things don't seem amenable to long term vibe coding. But how will that knowledge be obtained? Maybe there will be a much smaller pool of devs with the patience to actual learn bespoke software development.

Or, AI will actually get good enough that vibe coding is better in every case than mindful development. I guess the main factor is how long it takes for that to happen.

  > Just a bunch of people who treat the codebase as a black box, pump out slop, and call it a day when the feature works?

my guess is yes, because that is what i am seeing today in front of me with new grads

  > Or, AI will actually get good enough that vibe coding is better in every case than mindful development. I guess the main factor is how long it takes for that to happen.

i think there is a limit to this; you could train an llm to never dereference a null pointer or something like that, and you could probably minimize other security related stuff, but in the end its a token predictor, so you stuck with probabilities... i wouldn't vibe anything that had any security/legal/user related things but thats just me.

are you a well known business or submitting your very first app? its anecdotal, but it seems to me from experience at a couple companies is that apple/google are quick to review even new apps from established companies...

Ive heard that but not sure if true. I've been building and submitting apps for 15 years and have multiple approved and maintained apps in the store. (I am the developer of Hack, one of top hacker news clients on iOS and Android).

Though mine is not a "company" account.

  > but still use the services because of free/cheap/etc

it may be a crazy idea, but if they ever made a law that said 'free trial not withstanding, services must be payed for and not free' i wonder if that would fix the issue real fast...

(of course a side effect might be that half the economy implodes but thats besides the point ^^)

What exactly is the issue? Consumers complain about the bad parts of it, yet overwhelmingly use it. Sure, temporary dissatisfaction is there, but they still make it obvious with their choices that they want to use the offered product.

they overwhelmingly use it because its free, but if they even had to pay one cent i'd bet they'd loose half their customers and start shopping around on different metrics of quality

making things free causes a loss of price signal, so i'd say it would be a good idea to restore that...

  > and we have still a third that's offering premium features to users with cash to spend and leaves everyone else out in the cold

but at least we would know where to go for trust and safety? isn't that better than now where its just a crapshoot with no alternative?

(this is putting aside wetter we should even need 'appstores')

I don't think paywalling a non-fucked experience is a good solution for... anything, really. Like why do we have to charge people to get out of the fuck barrel? How about we just not have it?

  > You don't have a automatic right to live in another country in my opinion. 

its true, and thats how things are (legally anyways) but taking that further sometimes i wonder why its okay to freely move from region a to region b inside a country?

wouldn't the same logic apply to people from say east germany moving to the west? or 'annoying liberals' from california moving to north carolina? yes they can add to the local tax base, but if we want to keep things fair we should probably move to restrict everyone to stay in their own places if thats the logic we are following... but maybe i'm not thinking deeply enough...

  > foreigners are poorly behaved tourists, investors developing land and municipal issues with short-term residents

they could directly target them, i wonder why not?

because of outsourcing?

the other issue is, there are lots of people who work and help out in the countryside where cost of living (and hence wages) are very low and forcing them to be above the whole average of the county is a bit onerous i think.

probably a better idea is average for the prefecture they live in, but i guess they want to simplify things or discourage ppl from moving to the countryside? idk; most people are in tokyo/osaka to be sure...

  > The real cause is the failure of Abenomics and the resulting weak yen

i think you are right, there is a lot of over-tourism (and from some places 'rude' tourists that are really aggravating to people) but that is also being caused by weak yen in the end...

whats the saying? everything is downstream from economics?