Came here to say this. I wouldn’t be surprised if he became obese because of the 33 years he put into the job, always working and not having enough time to himself to self-care.

I mean it’s not really needed in Europe where true legal rights exist for employees, right?

This is more of a “only in the USA” kind of thing.

My solution to this is that I accept the other job offer, and I don’t quit until the night before I start my first day in the new one. As a result I’ve never spent a single day unemployed. If something I’m counting on doesn’t come through I’m already at my backup plan.

If companies won’t be loyal to us in this way, why do we owe any loyalty to them in return?

In a working paper released earlier this month, economists Anders Humlum and Emilie Vestergaard looked at the labor market impact of AI chatbots on 11 occupations, covering 25,000 workers and 7,000 workplaces in Denmark in 2023 and 2024.

Hmm, Denmark you say?

Also Denmark,

Denmark doesn’t have at-will employment. Employers may only terminate an employee with just cause and sufficient notice. Just cause can include financial reasons or employee misconduct.

https://www.rippling.com/country-hiring/denmark-employees

Actually, perhaps this points at a way forward… we should employment laws in the US that match those of Denmark.

Not following how his inability to find a job has any connection to AI?

It’s in the fortune article:

some of those few interviews have been with an AI agent instead of a human.
“I feel super invisible,” K tells Fortune. “I feel unseen. I feel like I’m filtered out before a human is even in the chain.”

That is, he’s getting fewer chances to establish a human-to-human connection to an interviewer, which is hurting his ability to get hired.

The bigger picture is that folks are indeed losing jobs to AI, have had their jobs cut because of AI, see

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/klarna-ceo-says-ai-helped-company-shrink-workforce-by-40/ar-AA1EMHG6

Software engineer here - I make more than this guy did and I have roughly the same amount of experience in the industry that he does (perhaps a smidge more, going off of his linkedin profile).

For folks who are saying that there’s something off about this guy - that would not have mattered two or three years ago. At most he would have just been seen as a highly talented dev who was also slightly quirky.

For those who say it’s not about AI and more about the economy - well, maybe. We do have a couple of major ongoing wars right now and moves over the last couple of months by the recent administration of the US haven’t helped.

But I was around during the crash back in 2008, and this still feels different. Harder. Before, I had recruiters just banging on my door. Now, it’s tough to past the automated screenings unless I have a contact at the company who can refer me there.

Meanwhile, I’m hearing from my co-workers about how great AI is - how they ran their code through it and it came up with a bunch of unit tests for them and some boilerplate code. Vibe coding is already a thing. So is using AI to write your resume and cover letters and applying to jobs.

Likewise, I look upon tools like Devin.ai with increasing trepidation. Today, LLMs aren’t good enough to replace a single senior dev, despite a lot of investment happening to move things in exactly this direction. It probably won’t happen tomorrow, or even next year. But in 25?

Let’s just say that this article really hit home for me.

The other point here is - the day that a person with no coding ability can ask an LLM to create and deploy an entire website, write and manage a brand new app from scratch, is going to be a day that’s a win for the people. We want to lower the barriers to entry here, to give this highly elite power to others. Actually, there shouldn’t be an elite at all - there should just be a democracy where everyone is equally empowered to create and build great things.

Working in tech will not remain this vaulted, lofty place for much longer. If we aren’t content creators, or controlling company owners, then ultimately tech workers like myself are in the same position as any other kind of worker - we work for someone else and serve only at their sufferance.

Right? It’s not a difficult concept to understand, not at all.

Not AI related, but reminds me of what happened at X when Musk let a bunch of folks quit and then had to beg for some of them to return. This is another example of a poorly thought out boomerang.

Rather than developing a Mexican brand of far-right politics, Verástegui tried to transplant a distinctly American flavour

That was probably why. Though I suppose that it doesn’t explain why no one else tried to innovate a more native far-right brand.

2024 might otherwise have been a tough year, but 2025 was a lot better. Just look at the recent elections in Australia and Canada.

Also worth mentioning from the article,

I work fully in the office. But I think remote work is better for work-life balance. I don’t have the option to work remote

Well, why not? Covid showed how great this can work … but so many companies went back to 20th century norms as soon as the pandemic ended*

• AS per https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/who-pandemic-not-emergency-1.6833321 the global emergency ended on May 2023 - almost two years ago to the day, but covid itself still circulates.

As a professional developer nearing 20 years of experience, I am a fan of freecodecamp.org

They have a new book that covers a lot of this, both the upskilling and the interview specifically, https://www.freecodecamp.org/news/learn-to-code-book/

My two cents: In the before times, this would have seemed like something more suited to a virtual personal assistant kind of service (like getfriday dot com). Though searches reveal a lot of AI tools that do exactly what you are asking for (but it’s AI).

Well, I guess, how would you actually do that? Like, how do you convince the owner of Toptal to fold shop so your replacement can take shape?

Conclusion

The Coexistion Protocol embodies a visionary approach to rethinking economic systems, focusing on fairness, transparency, and decentralization. While its principles resonate with the evolving landscape of decentralized technologies and the growing desire for equitable economic participation, the feasibility of its implementation is contingent on addressing several complex challenges. The success of such a protocol will depend on careful planning, user experience design, robust governance structures, and a willingness to adapt to the lessons learned during implementation.

In summary, while the Coexistion Protocol presents a realistic and hopeful blueprint for the future, its practicality hinges on overcoming significant hurdles related to implementation, governance, economic sustainability, adoption, and regulatory compliance.

Challenges and Concerns

1. Implementation Complexity: While the protocol aims to simplify decentralized systems, the actual implementation of a robust and efficient decentralized framework can be complex. Ensuring scalability, security, and user-friendliness will be significant challenges, especially as the system grows.

2. Governance and Decision-Making: Achieving true democratic governance in a decentralized system can be difficult. Ensuring that all voices are heard and that decisions are made effectively without falling into the trap of inefficiency or gridlock is a critical concern. The proposed consensus-based decision-making might face challenges in practice, particularly in larger groups.

3. Economic Viability: The non-speculative value system represents an interesting shift from traditional economic models. However, establishing a stable and sustainable economic model that rewards contributions equitably while preventing exploitation and ensuring long-term viability is a complex task. The challenge of ensuring that value is accurately tracked and distributed can be significant.

4. Adoption and Transition: The transition from traditional economic systems to a decentralized framework like the Coexistion Protocol will require significant cultural and systemic shifts. Gaining buy-in from established institutions, businesses, and individuals accustomed to traditional hierarchical structures may be challenging. Moreover, potential resistance from those who benefit from the current power dynamics may hinder adoption.

5. Regulatory Environment: Decentralized systems often face uncertain regulatory landscapes, and the Coexistion Protocol would likely attract scrutiny from regulators. Navigating legal frameworks while maintaining the principles of decentralization and inclusivity could be a significant hurdle.

6. Technological Barriers: The reliance on technology means that access to the Coexistion Protocol could be limited for those without the necessary digital literacy or access to technology. Ensuring equitable access to the system will be crucial for achieving its goals.

The Coexistion Protocol presents an ambitious vision for a decentralized economic framework aimed at fostering fairness, transparency, and inclusivity. Its goals of equitable work allocation, decentralized governance, and a non-speculative value system are indeed compelling and align with ongoing trends in the digital economy, particularly those driven by blockchain technology and decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs). However, while the concept is innovative and appealing, several factors must be considered regarding its feasibility and realism.

Strengths and Opportunities

1. Decentralization and Transparency: By leveraging blockchain and decentralized governance models, the protocol can enhance transparency and trust among participants. This is a crucial element in today’s economic environment, where trust in institutions is waning.

2. Merit-Based Allocation: The emphasis on merit-based work allocation can potentially democratize access to opportunities, allowing individuals to participate and thrive based on their skills rather than their connections or backgrounds.

3. Integrated Education: The focus on embedding education and skill development within the economic framework is particularly relevant in addressing skill gaps and preparing workers for evolving market demands.

4. Collaborative Ownership: The idea of shared ownership and collective responsibility can foster a sense of community and shared purpose, encouraging collaboration over competition.

ChatGPT seems to approve!

Removed by mod

I think piefed.social/pyfedi (which is slowly implementing support for all such objects) should get a mention here as well

So I dug into the source code a bit to see how it’s used. It turns out that IPFS might actually optional, as per the log line on https://github.com/hyprspace/hyprspace/blob/master/p2p/node.go#L213 (“Getting additional peers from IPFS API”)

The list of required bootstrap peers is hardcoded in the same file, but a few lines above, specifically at https://github.com/hyprspace/hyprspace/blob/master/p2p/node.go#L181

I say might be because - while the required bootstrap peers include a bunch of ones based on bootstrap.libp2p.io - there is a long list of hardcoded ip addresses and I don’t recognize any of them.

So those might be libp2p.io ip addresses, but they might also be IPFS ip addresses, or even belong to someone else altogether. (Edit: There are WHOIS tools online like https://lookup.icann.org/en that can be used to look these up and figure out who they belong to if you are really curious, but I can’t be bothered to do that right now.)

In any case, it looks like the way this works is that from a peer, libp2p tries to look up additional peers, and so on. So at most IPFS would be used as a way to get a listing, but once the desired peer is found, IPFS is cut out of the picture for that particular connection and NAT hole punching is used to establish a direct connection between peers instead (as per the linked wikipedia article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hole_punching_(networking )

I guess they back either other up. Like archive.is is able to take archives from archive.org but the saved page reflects the original URL and the original archiving time from the wayback machine (though it also notes the URL used from wayback itself plus the time they got archived it from wayback).