It's best to give up? Almost no one would seriously wonder?Software is also too abstract?

Developer productivity questions will always occur in the minds of the people signing the front of the paycheck.

Then it's best to disabuse them of such notions. If they want a consistent product that is produced by the operation of an assembly line then they should invest in factories instead of software and software engineers.

One of many worlds.

This is the worst answer I have read in a year. You should be gratefull someone taught you to wipe your butt. I think what you really meant to say was "I have no idea how email works either but I'm going to make you think you shouldn't try to figure it out because then you might become better than me."

I think what you really meant to say was “I’ve never built an ESP, scaled one, or maintained one but I’m going to criticize instead of giving any type of reasoned rebuttal to make you think I’m better than you without having to say anything of any substance.”

Congrats, outside of pure prejudice, this is the worst comment reply I’ve received on HN.

When you get your “5 Easy Steps for Building ESPs (#4 Will Shock You!)” blog post up I can’t wait to read it.

Social securityis a pretty well known ponzi scheme.

yes its negative. look up the word dystopian

Just to clarify, did you take the time to read this?

I read it more than once. Need any more clarification or were you just hoping for a longer answer to start a discussion?

I think you're confusing yourself with the terminology, so thank you for bringing this up, I'm referring to a specific likely scenario where the effects brought on by climate change and workforce displacement which I broadly refer to as 'dystopian', not the broadly applied science fiction reference where, in some cases, society itself has collapsed to surreal science fiction like levels.

You're referring to an unknown future world, defining it primarily by a label which literally means "hypothetical world which is bad" and asking us what we think of it. I'm not sure that asking us to compare it with reference to other unknowns like past and future cortisol levels makes it any clearer...

Ultimately, I guess it is possible to have a society which is construed in today's eyes as as "dystopian" in its form of organization and yet has a lot of technology assisted endorphin rushes and very little stress (Aldous Huxley wrote about one in 1932) but I'm not sure what that has to do with predictions that lots of people might not be able to eat from climate induced crop failures or loss of employment opportunities, neither of which would appear to give them less stress or better objective living conditions. If your argument boils down to "is technological progress bad?" I think the answer is, "it depends on how it progresses"

First you didn't beleive I read it, then you tell me I'm confusing myself! I would suggest removing the 'phd' on your username and replace it with something more your speed, like 'sh!t'

EDIT: ok maybe that was a bit harsh but the only way dystopian anything can be a good thing is to people who like dystopia which is then actually utopia and it reverts back to my original answer which is - dystopia = negative.

You are debating nomenclature and not the core argument, which is that in a world 'destroyed' by climate change, are people necessarily worse off? As most arguments say 'yes'

Thanks for the tip, but the PhD refers to a nightclub not the academic title and is actually a typo it should be DigiCat lol. I used the word dystopian to attract interest in the paradox.

I think the problem I'm having here is that all your terminology is open-ended and subjective. Terms like 'better off' 'happier' 'healcare advancements' are not measurable. It may be possible to answer your own question by reversing the thought. Like, will our dystopian future be caused by our attemp to fight climate change and can that dystopia be mitigated with the use of technological advancements?

This is an open ended philosophical question, not an attempt at empirical analysis

Why would you not support jpeg?

More than twice the storage space required for what I'm hoping will be a very large amount of images uploaded to my server.

Well if its just you serving your own images then I think it doesn't matter. If its you hosting images for others, then that chould raise your costs but should be looked at as a cost of doing business and adjust pricing if necessary. The increased cost could be outweighed if there is a significant amount of business you didn't get by not offering the jpeg uploads.

If you use a service like Amazon S3 or Cloudflare R2 you pay a certain amount for storage and a certain amount for bandwidth.

In a collection of, say, a few million images, you will have many that generate very little traffic but others that become extremely popular in comparison. You might be worrying about "how to pay to store less popular images" and "how to pay for bandwidth for highly popular images" at the same time!

If I can publish only webp I feel like I am optimizing both storage costs and bandwidth costs at the same time. Adding more formats can help with bandwidth but can only hurt in terms of storage.

I scan them and save them on some kind of digital format. And things like my kids artwork I save in a box in the closet :-)

Your post title is not a question, it is a title with a question mark at the end. Just because you are not expecting an answer doesn't mean you don't deserve one....you did ask a question. Questions also change brain chemistry. The person asking the questions is in control of direction of the conversation. I think the questions that you are speaking of are the type meant to lure you in like "Is DDR4 really faster than DDR3?" and then you read a content marketing article from a DDR4 manufacturer.

agree, and the element picker is nice to use also

i.e. I get to interact with the people I add/follow on my terms

Workinig on it ;-)