Comment by dmak
4 years ago
- We'll see a new social network born. My guess is that it will try to carve out a segment from Twitter and Tiktok due to the recent changes from Musk and U.S. government concerns, respectively.
- People will start realizing Vue is just AngularJS all over again and will further converge towards React. There is already many signs of this in Vue3.
- Cryptocurrency regulation will be an ongoing discussion, and nothing will happen until SBF is in jail.
- Influencers who pumped and dumped crypto will be an ongoing target from the SEC. The recently Coffeezilla series on Logan Paul will likely be made an example of.
- We'll see more layoffs
- We will see more millennials quit the 9-5 to pursue some kind of passion. My guess is most will try to be an influencer.
- We'll start seeing more pirating again as people are being laid off and also due to the increase of streaming competitors.
- Meta will likely continue to lose money and their AR strategy will be disrupted by Apple.
“We will see more millennials quit the 9-5 to pursue some kind of passion. My guess is most will try to be an influencer.”
But where do influencers get their money? Endorsements aka advertisements and straight from subscribers. We may already be seeing a contraction of the advertisers from online streaming so this probably has shorter legs than required to impact the 9-5 hegemony.
Otherwise people who left the labor market probably have their finances tied to the stock market and interest rates - whether they realize it or not. The Fed has stated they will raise rates until the labor market moves back towards employers. (They are not a populist group, btw.) They absolutely think raising rates will push people out of retirement regardless of age.
Personally, I think it’s far past time for the labor market to correct towards the supply side than the demand side. Ie workers and worker needs/wants. This did happen after the 1918 Pandemic. But of course that era didn’t have quite the high powered technocratic class pushing things toward the corporates away from market equilibrium. (Economic theory does generally warn against artificial conditions thwarting equilibrium of supply/demand. The hell of rent caps in NYC is an example.)
In short, make jobs more desirable for people to work or see an inefficient outcome until the market does. Let the market do its thing at least, or (better) reinforce workers rights-as the market has already pushed the equilibrium too far towards labor demand and away from supply.
I think this looks like creative solutions around hours/scheduling, workplace conditions, and moving away from toxic environments like hire to fire, “quiet promotions”, or under scheduling people to avoid paying benefits.
I'm not a fan of the whole "the market will deal with it" thing. Here's my analogy (I was talking about this as far back as the late 90's).
1. Assume global warming is happening.
2. Assume that global warming is going to start causing problems for humans.
Humans will start using technology to deal with these problems. And they'll be successful. This is going to have the harmful effect of making global warming worse before humans truly start trying to solve the root issue (because they can continue to live without being affected by it).
There are two lines here. Passing the first line starts affecting humans, and passing the second line ends in catastrophe (humans can no longer exist on earth).
In a well functioning system, as we pass the first line, humans will start taking notice and we will _naturally_ start trying to avoid the second line. The space between these two lines is our buffer.
As we use technology to keep the warming from affecting us, we will push the first line back while avoiding any true behavior changes that would ultimately keep us from the second line. This decreases our buffer and increases the danger. At some point the technology will either fail or completely remove the second line (one can imagine building a bubble around the earth ala space balls so we can very explicitly regulate the environment).
To use technology in this manner is to invite catastrophe and to gamble that technology will never fail us. It may, or it may not.
---
This is how I feel about "the market". In theory, the market should naturally push towards an equilibrium and correct so as to avoid true disaster. Humans are involved, technology is involved, causing the market to be unnatural and affected by forces outside of that market. In the case of markets, catastrophe isn't the extinction of all human life, but it IS untold horrors. People are currently using technology to force the market to be what they want. This will break at some point.
This is why the market needs to be regulated, to control how much of an effect both humans and technology have on it. Not because the market will never self-correct, but because of the untold pain when it does.
And I understand the argument against it, this is not about controlling the market, it's about _PROTECTING_ the market from undue influence by those with more power than others. The alternative to too much regulation isn't "no regulation", it's "less regulation". Of course, you also have the classic problem of "who watches the watchers" and there's no good answer for solving THAT problem, but I don't think the right answer is "fuck it, just let it play out".
Could you explain more (or link to an article) about how Vue is AngularJS (and how that's a problem)?
Could be very useful as I'm a Vue fan and currently investing heavily careerwise.
It's just my personal opinion.
When you learn React with JSX, you just need to know JS and everything else is pretty much predictable. Whereas in Vue, you have to learn JS and all the declaration markups of Vue (ex, v-bind, v-for, etc...); it's less predictable and someone who understands JS would still have to learn those things. Ex, if you knew how to write a loop in JS then you can write a loop to output React components. In Vue, you have to learn how to use v-for. When you start talking about filters and other things, it gets overly complicated in Vue (like AngularJS).
Two-way binding was a thing in early AngularJS days similar to Vue, and they both found out through iteration that it's not as great in practice as in theory. I believe Vue3 is only one-way binding now? With the composition API, you're encouraged to use defineEmits as the callback mechanism to parent components similar to React's paradigm. When React came out, it was all one-way binding and it made sense and worked well.
Vue's composition API with the defineProps and defineEmits creates a similar component composition structure to React's effect hooks. However, the general structure of the component still requires Vue syntax (ex, <template>, <script setup>, etc...). In React, you just write a JS function and return what you expect to render.
Vue is also a bit too magical in how their props work especially when you are using <script setup>. It's not obvious that props can be inherited unless you read the documentation. In React, it's just JavaScript and you get the props through the function arguments.
I think the common "strengths" of Vue are often applicable to all frontend frameworks, because it's all JavaScript at the end of the day. This is all just my opinion though.
We've been leaning heavily into Vue3+TSX over at https://radiopaper.com which addresses some of these gripes. It's true there's more "magic" and ceremony around creating components than just a simple function, but not much – you just return what you expect to render from the `setup` component method and all is well. You also get niceties like well-typed props & emitted events, and even runtime prop data validation if desired, built right in.
Vue3 also has `FunctionalComponent` now for the cases where you really want a simple component from a function – and again props work beautifully with Typescript.
In contrast, I'm finding integrating Typescript with the largely-JS React codebase I work with on the day job to be a bit nightmarish – the amount of prop destructuring which seems to happen in every single component makes typing their signatures a repetitive, tedious affair (largely due to TS's handling of destructured arguments). I'm not sure how universal this style is in modern React but I do seem to come across it pretty frequently. To be fair, React's simplicity does make it eminently typeable, this is more of a code-stylistic issue.
All that said, appreciated reading your take on the two frameworks – it's extremely difficult to remain objective about the tools we use day in and out and these sorts of comparisons absolutely help. We all want to be moving towards systems we enjoy building with and will continue enjoying for decades - I for one am infinitely grateful to React and its community for bringing JSX/TSX into the world (which I'm sure is still a somewhat controversial stance in 2022- but for me personally, after a 6 or so months with it, the firsthand experience told me all I needed to know). Happy xmas to you!
5 replies →
I would add to your prediction:
we will see a trend away from React Hooks to something that feels less magical, but is also different from the old way of using class components.
Thanks, that's a clear and thorough explanation. Enjoy your Christmas!
1 reply →
The age of influencers is over, they are not cool anymore.
It's just getting started. We're on the verge of seeing the first few billionaire influencers emerge. That will definitely turn heads and drive more money towards that direction. We're also seeing the rise of the children of tech money (I forgot the name to reference this group of people), but they're going to be heavy on influencer lifecycles too.
"influencer" is like Tech.
Kylie isn't a billionaire because she's an "influencer" - she's a billionaire because she runs a traditional business.
Just like Meta isn't a "tech" company - it's a traditional media / advertising company with a slightly different model.
I disagree. Peak influencer moment was the billionaire status of folks like Kanye, Kardashians, Kylie Jenner, etc. If anything is to be seen from the past year, it's that they're just as vulnerable to the machinations of the mainstream as any one. Moreover, most of their wealth is pure paper - not even publicly traded. With a sure trimming of private valuations, they will definitely be hurt (although their lifestyle won't, but I doubt they are that stupid to showcase their lives during an actual recession year when it happens).
Tldr:- Influencers are correlated to the markets. Market valuations fall, Influencers get hurt.
2 replies →