Stefan Mischook

Ai harnessing is the new programming paradigm. It is very powerful but very complex. As far as I can see, just as complex as the most advanced full stack architecture. What’s really interesting to me, an ancient nerd, are the completely new use cases that Ai harnessing addresses.

New video for young nerdlings: 30 Years in Software Taught Me These Life Lessons youtu.be/t3VjKF_DKoM

Uncle Stef needs his protein!

In light of the last 10 years, this episode of Star Trek should be required viewing:

If you believe Apple is a good long term investment, this is a buying opportunity. It seems to me, that if Apple has to raise prices, eventually everyone will, so this move amounts to a push.

If Ai can easily translate codebases from language A to B, then which language would be best as the A language, to allow for faster and less error prone code, so that we can then have the Ai generate the better deployment language? If that makes any sense?

ChatGPT is getting strangely dumb these last few days:

My next social media rig.

@Awk20000 They got lemurs too

Asmongold could not believe SpaceX is currently worth more than Canada "There's no way..omg y'all got a 3rd world country over there..that's insane..I guess we can (take Canada now)..apparently Elon's just going to buy it" "I don't want him to buy Canada..if ur gonna buy any one country..Madagascar, it's a cool place, unique area, don't have to worry about invasions from other countries in Africa bc there's water"

@twtayaan Correct.👍

The creator of Linux just publicly called out the AI hype. Word for word. Linus Torvalds took the stage at Open Source Summit 2026 and said this: "When I see people saying 99% of our code is written by AI, I literally get angry. Because those same people — I can pretty much guarantee — 100% of their code is written by compilers. But they never say that." He is not anti AI. The Linux kernel saw a 20% jump in submissions this release because of AI tools. He uses it. He gets it. His point is something most people are too afraid to say. AI is a productivity tool exactly like compilers were. Compilers boosted programming by 1000x. AI adds another 10x on top. Enormous. But nobody says "the compiler wrote my code." So why are we saying AI wrote it? He also flagged something nobody is talking about. AI is flooding small open source projects with drive-by bug reports. Someone runs a prompt, files a report and disappears when asked for a patch. Maintainers with one or two people are drowning trying to keep up. "Sometimes AI reports a bug and when you ask for more information the person has done that drive-by and does not even answer your question. That is the real burnout issue." And his final warning was the sharpest of all. "People who do not understand the complexity of systems will prompt systems and write processes that will fail." The AI hype crowd is very loud right now. Linus has been building real systems for 35 years. When he talks, engineers listen. Full interview here: thenewstack.io/torvalds-ai-pr…

React and JS are no longer the key to junior developer jobs.

@elonmusk 💯

True

@jackcoder0 Yes, and economists are always correct. 👍 🤦‍♂️

Two economists just published a mathematical proof that AI will destroy the economy. Not might. Not could. Will — if nothing changes. The paper is called "The AI Layoff Trap." Published March 2, 2026. Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. Boston University. Peer reviewed. Mathematically modeled. The conclusion is one sentence. "At the limit, firms automate their way to boundless productivity and zero demand." An economy that produces everything. And sells it to nobody. Here is how you get there. A company fires 500 workers and replaces them with AI. A competitor fires 700 to keep up. Another fires 1,000. Every company is behaving rationally. Every company is following the incentives correctly. And every company is building a trap for itself. Because the workers who were fired were also customers. When they lose their jobs faster than the economy can absorb them, they stop spending. Consumer demand falls. Companies respond by cutting costs — which means automating more workers — which means less spending — which means more falling demand — which means more automation. The loop has no natural exit. The researchers tested every proposed solution. Universal basic income. Capital income taxes. Worker equity participation. Upskilling programs. Corporate coordination agreements. Every single one failed in the model. The only intervention that worked: a Pigouvian automation tax — a per-task levy charged every time a company replaces a human with AI, forcing them to price in the demand they are destroying before they pull the trigger. No government has implemented this. No major economy is seriously discussing it. Meanwhile the numbers are already tracking the curve. 100,000 tech workers laid off in 2025. 92,000 more in the first months of 2026. Jack Dorsey fired half of Block's workforce and said publicly: "Within the next year, the majority of companies will reach the same conclusion." Nobody is doing anything wrong. Companies are following their incentives perfectly. That is exactly the problem. Rational behavior. At scale. Simultaneously. With no mechanism to stop it. Two economists built the math. The math leads to one place. Source: Falk & Tsoukalas · Wharton School + Boston University ·

Walked 19500 steps today, had only consumed 1350 calories … started getting dizzy. 😵‍💫 Refuelled with 2 eggs and 4 small slices of dark bread. Electrolyte water. All is well. You’ll got to watch it when old like me. I’m on a cut to 15% body fat.

Spec-driven AI development sounds great in theory, but if your plan is to write one giant monolithic spec, hand it to an AI, then go grab a coffee while it builds your app… you’re probably heading for trouble. The better approach is hybrid.

@joeroganhq Yes, one if my mentors in the 1990s told me he’d rather hire a nice guy with good skills over an asshole genius.

Elon Musk: "The biggest mistake I made is to put too much of a weighting on somebody's talent and not much on their personality, it actually matters whether somebody has a good heart."

Many are taking PEDs and GLP-1 … uh supplements, and they result in a very distinctive look on people. To my eyes, it looks unnatural. I think in time the aesthetic disposition of society will move to favour natural looking physiques and faces. Best to avoid IMHO.

Coding has always been an aspect of software development. Not the full game.

Jeff Bezos is right: we are about to enter a jobs and productivity boom. The recent layoffs (Meta and Amazon) are about 10% of their total employees, and this is to be expected after the hiring boom that happened during the COVID years. Also, the Metaverse is a flop.

@jaynitx Jeff is 100% correct. 👍 Golden age coming.

Jeff Bezos reveals why he thinks AI will cause a labor shortage, not mass unemployment "There's so many people who are afraid AI is going to take their job. I think there's going to be a labor shortage as a result" "All these smart people keep saying there's going to be no more radiologists because AI can read X-rays better, no more software engineers because AI can program better. These people are wrong" "What's really going to happen is it's going to elevate all of these people. You've been digging out a basement with a shovel, and somebody is about to hand you a bulldozer" "We're going to have so much productivity that a lot of people with two-earner income households, one of them is going to drop out of the workforce" "I predict we will actually have deflation of certain core things. Food will get cheaper and housing construction will get cheaper"

@ggreenwald Claims about Ai have been greatly exaggerated because nothing like a doomsday story to drive investors. This is from the perspective of a 30 year veteran in software development. Ai is powerful but not nearly as powerful as the tech bros would have you believe. IMHO

AI is a technology that has been constantly and aggressively touted as one of the most consequential and transformative in human history, yet there's been almost no attempt to convince the public that any of this is good for them and their lives. The potential harms of AI -- wiping out jobs en masse, replacing most human functions, dangers of losing control of it, having it bestow itself unforeseeable powers -- have been more prominent in the discourse and are more intuitively visible. If anything, this growing public concern/anger is overdue. It should at least produce far more transparent and informed debates about where things are, where they're likely going, what protections are possible, etc.