toebert

Nothing, if that was your point then I misunderstood what you were suggesting - also perfectly valid.

I think 75% is apt here, tailwind is incredibly popular and most people wouldn’t know how many engineers they have. If it said “tailwind let 3 people go” I bet most (including me) would assume alright… tailwinds big they may have 30-50 people around… 3 is not too bad right?

I also disagree with this being entirely bullshit, I think he is right that the impact of AI has made the situation worse for him by impacting his most valuable sales funnel (their own documentation pages). But separately, it is a very populated space (UI libraries) with multiple options to compete with, some of which are rather well established and free - so it was an uphill battle to begin with.

“Traffic to our docs is down about 40% from early 2023 despite Tailwind being more popular than ever,” he added. He then goes on to explain that “The docs are the only way people find out about our commercial products, and without customers we can’t afford to maintain the framework.”

People no longer need to look at their docs or their website because they ask AI how to do something with tailwind instead, so they no longer get to expose and advertise their product (tailwind plus).

Tailwind plus is a one time payment, not a subscription. If there are no new customers to buy it, their income is gone.

I can’t say I know the answer but a few ideas:

• did you access it with a browser? Maybe it snitches on you or some extension does?
• did you try to resolve it with a public DNS server at any point (are you sure nothing forwarded the request to one)?

You could try it again, create the domain in the config and then do absolutely nothing. Don’t try to confirm it works in any way. If you don’t see the same behaviour you can do one of the above and then the other and see when it kicks in. If it gets picked up without you doing anything…then pass!

His point seems to be rather that he has been using a monetisation approach to his work where he released his work open source and then used the exposure of it to sell his services, which is now being taken away because LLMs hide him from the equation and all the person sees on the other side is “ai solved it for me”. That sounds to me more like a business model that leverages open source, which he is now considering changing and charging everyone instead because his previous one is being made impossible. It doesn’t sound like he is doing this as a hobby, but as a job. It’s not different than being a self employed photographer, writer etc - all the other professions which are revolting against AI for the exact same reason.

To your metaphor, it’s more akin to someone going around the street and recording the best songs of every musician there and then putting it on YouTube with a label of “don’t bother going to this place, here’s the music you wanted”. Not only do they not get money directly, nor are they getting any credit or royalty but it even removes the chance of them getting anything out of it, even if it’s just exposure to further their career.

I’m pretty sure few people will bask for 6-8 hours a day every day as a hobby without hoping to get something for it.

To your last point…Isn’t the definition of charity pretty much along the lines of offering services or resources to others without the expectation of profit? I get your point if it applies to the “I wrote some code which works for me, you can have it as is, good luck” situation alone but that’s incredibly rare in open source projects with any popularity (i.e. real users) - a lot of time and effort goes into supporting people and doing things you wouldn’t do for yourself.

I don’t think it is selfish to expect to be compensated for your work - open source or otherwise - especially when you do start doing it for others (e.g. dealing with issues, reviewing prs, fixing and implementing things you wouldn’t just for yourself).

If you don’t expect it that’s great, but as he pointed out - that’s charity. No reason to expect that everyone will be in a position to do that indefinitely, especially when it comes to massive projects that turn into full time jobs.

If you’re unsure what the vet said, call them back to clarify.

Ask them to tell you what treatment they’re recommending exactly and why, what are the alternatives if any and what are the short and long term effects of each, as well as any side effects and risks.

Once you got all that and still unsure or concerned, see another vet and ask for a consultation for a second opinion.

Treat it the same as if your doctor told you that you need operation.

There is a “non-food crops” slice in the agricultural land part which seems to do exactly this though.

It feels like this is treating symptoms, however helpful it may seem in the short term.

Obesity in pets is 100% the fault of the owner, although pet food manufacturers don’t make it easy… I have 2 cats whose breed is well known for being commonly overweight but they’re both at their ideal recommended by the vet. It did take effort to find healthier food for them and the correct amount, as well as build up their habits that they get as much as is in their bowl and nothing more regardless of the amount of complaining. It’s the same logic as with humans, count the calories going in and adjust that - except pet food manufacturers don’t often disclose even an estimate.

Outside cats are a divisive topic already though, in those cases it’s arguable whether the owner is solely responsible for it all (due to the decision to let them out) or the other people who also feed the clearly well fed cat a 2nd and 3rd meal because they’re trying to befriend it or it “looks hungry”.

If we could just have a “don’t feed someone else’s pet unless you’re asked to” mentality + people would research good food for their pets as a standard it’d go a long way imo and it seems safer than putting animals on drugs.

I’m not vegan myself but I had asked a similar enough question to a vegan friend a while ago and liked his answer:

He said for him it’s 2 parts, 1 is that while the animal that died may not have been harmed by humans, the ecosystem that relies on scavenging carcasses will be hurt if humans effectively start removing their entire food source (same way we have driven species to extinction by hunting).

The 2nd part is that with humans everything with even the tiniest loop hole will get abused… Imagine that we say this is okay. Today it may be the odd naturally deceased animal, in a month it’ll start including animals “killed accidentally”, in a year it’ll be someone farming animals with some weird way of culling them so they can claim it’s still natural causes by some twisted logic… at the end of it we’d just not be able to trust any of it anyway so it’s easier to not even entertain the thought - the energy to figure it all out would be better spent on improving alternatives.