This kind of interaction is what makes me miss the "old internet" the most...

Apple is generally bad at search. For further evidence, see their developer website. To get anything useful out of it, I have to use a custom Google search: https://www.google.com/search?num=100&udm=14&q=site%3Adevelo...

Some commenters are presenting a conspiracy theory about how Apple is intentionally sabotaging App Store search, perhaps with the goal of maximizing App Store search ad revenue. I think the empirical evidence, covering all examples of Apple search, points to incompetence rather than malice. Money does factor in, but again, not in a conspiratorial way: rather, Apple simply has no monetary incentive to fix their own incompetence. It's complacency rather than conspiracy. This is what happens with monopolies and duopolies: they've already got essentially a captive audience, so they no longer need to put in the effort to compete. They just "phone it in", so to speak.

I don't think that Apple wants a bunch of scams in the App Store. But when developers and users are practically throwing money at Apple, no matter what Apple does or doesn't do, and "services" margins are 70%, there's a great temptation to pocket the profits and shrug.

For another example of how Apple is bad at search, look at the Settings app. Awful. But again, it's not sabotage. That would be silly and pointless. It's just pure and simple incompetence and complacency.

Don't you think the next step is a programming language that isn't even meant to be human readable? What's the point of using an LLM to generate python or Swift or whatever? The output of the LLM should be something that runs and does whatever it's been asked to do... why should the implementation be some programming language that was designed for humans to grok? Once that's true the idea of it being maintainable becomes moot, because no one will know what it is in the first place. I don't think we're there yet, but that seems like the eventual destination.

I think the argument might be that it takes less domain knowledge of hardware and all its abstractions, which does require a minimum threshold of reasoning and abstract thinking ability. I have high confidence someone who could built a database or kernel could also do front end work with a reasonable ramp up time.

I don’t share that confidence for the inverse in the nominal case

I don't know that there's "real" programming, that seems like a hard fight to fight on either side, it's like arguing about whether animals are conscious or something. Are people? Who knows, pass the blunt.

But there's been this really sharp over-correction to where now an obvious thing that is just common knowledge and that was never taboo is now considered impolite to even allude to. Frontend programming is among the easier kinds of software work as measured by the number of people who can do it? I bet if I tried really hard, I could probably be pretty kickass at pickleball, small court, not a lot moving around. But to be like, that's the same thing as the NFL. No, no it's not. I would never have been able to try out for the NFL, not if I live a thousand times.

There's pickleball and pro football in programming too.

Why would a game of baseball be any more high variance than an NFL game?

On the face of it, NFL’s playoff of a single game deciding forward progress seems more high variance, rather than a best of x series.

Football also seems more high variance just due to the explosive, physical nature of the game.

I wonder what the stats say about lower seeds winning the tournament for MLB vs NFL playoffs.

I think a common misconception of Moneyball is that it's about analytics. The broader lesson is that people need to systematically evaluate undervalued assets in sports/business etc.

One of the interesting 'post-Moneyball' stories is when old-school scouting methods came back onto the scene. People started overvaluing the new popularized statistics, and the market advantage was to combine the analytics and traditional approach in a cost-efficient manner.

One of the analytics leads for the Red Sox came to Harvard to give a presentation. I asked if he could quantify the effects analytics was having compared to the conventional wisdom developed over the course of 150 years of pro baseball.

He thought that analytics was changing the probabilities of discrete events by single digits. Essentially, nobody was doing anything wrong, there were just optimizations that were/are available.

Remember that the book/movie is about the A’s, who were eliminated in the first round of the baseball playoffs.

Nope