Forum Posts Feed
Claude Code is like crack cocaine for CRIMPers
< Next Topic | Back to topic list | Previous Topic >
Posted by Chris Murtland
Nov 16, 2025 at 11:26 PM
Fair enough.
I do wonder if the reliance will extend beyond production to all the other things you mention; even if AI doesn’t do them particularly well (yet), it may appear to do them well enough that the allure of outsourcing everything to the machine will be too great.
Maybe innovation will come to mean doing the things AI never suggests you do.
Posted by Amontillado
Nov 17, 2025 at 05:00 AM
This is really a nice conversation. Philosophy and technology, cool stuff, although the combination is more often used to attack progress than to support it.
I don’t wish to attack progress, but there are real gaps in how we are training ourselves.
Slide rules, for example. I can make logs and exponents dance and sing, at least to some extent, because a few years ago I learned how to use a slide rule.
That gave me a physical grasp of some numeric methods I didn’t have before.
From a slide rule, in these modern times, I learned stuff I wouldn’t have otherwise.
Who would of thought that?
Posted by satis
Nov 17, 2025 at 09:40 PM
Yes, older tools can give a tactile understanding of abstract operations that modern tools often obscure. And the broader idea is also true, that some technological conveniences reduce exposure to underlying mechanisms. A useful takeaway is not that older tools are inherently *better* but that certain forms of hands-on, constraint-driven practice can expose structure that more automated tools hide.
There are tradeoffs to be sure, but in many cases they’re worth it, though not necessarily to everyone.
I remember a high school teacher who decades ago was horrified at the thought of electronically delivered news because he felt he’d regularly gained knowledge and insight from random, serendipitous discovery when reading the NYTimes daily. Faster access, searchability, customization is gained at the expense of reduced accidental encounters with unrelated topics, and there’s the higher risk of filter bubbles created by algorithmic recommendation systems.
But in 2025 how many people are reading newspapers? And how many would want to go back?
Posted by Paul Korm
Nov 17, 2025 at 10:59 PM
satis wrote:
>But in 2025 how many people are reading newspapers? And how many would
>want to go back?
Uh ... me. I read newspapers and lots of “serious” magazines. The weekend FT provides a enjoyable hour on a quiet Sunday afternoon. I’ve had my weekly New Yorker delivered since I was in elementary school when I couldn’t wait for a new McPhee essay or Kael review.
Posted by satis
Nov 18, 2025 at 04:19 AM
Paul Korm wrote:
satis wrote:
>>But in 2025 how many people are reading newspapers? And how many would
>>want to go back?
>
>Uh ... me.
You’re in a small and shrinking minority. Not because print lacks its pleasures, but because most people prefer the tradeoffs of digital mentioned above. Pew Research’s 2025 survey found that only 7% of U.S. adults “often” get news from printed newspapers or magazines. In contrast, 56% often get news from a computer, smartphone, or tablet, and 32% from television.
Even among older adults (the demographic group which most prefers print) print is limited: in the 65+ group, 37% say they get news from print “often or sometimes”, compared with 71% for digital devices and 87% for television. For those aged 50–64, 85% rely on digital devices, and for adults under 50 the share rises to 92–93%, while only 18–22% of the under-50s report getting news from print “often or sometimes”.
The tactile experience of a physical newspaper is real, but statistically, most have moved to digital.