I think it 's part of controlling the narrative. What if the big corps were actually behind the fetishization of and obsession with privacy and data collection? What if it acts as a distraction or cover for whatever other negative initiatives they might take? If they can control the opposition to focus on "privacy and my data versus big corp" it's a win. I think controlled opposition is an essential part of narrative management and PR strategy for entities that are large or sophisticated enough.
I think one of the issues of nolocode is it doesn't actually help people think like programmers, but the tools are often created with the implicit need to do that, a need which the creators don't see because they are coders.
People get spreadsheets and word documents. I don't really know why. But they get them. But while it might seem like the step from doc/xls to nolocode is small or even non-existent, I think it actually is really big for most people who are supposed to be the audience for that (complete non developers).
I think one reason is because people don't want the responsibility to make a system that can break. I'm not too sure if this is the only or the biggest reason, but I think non-coders don't have the sense that they can build things, and even if you show them they can using some hot tool, it seems they're still scared it's going to break and it will be on them.
Maybe one reason is because if you break an Excel doc, there's usually someone around in your org who knows how to fix it. But the same can't be said for some random new hot nocode tool.
I think for specific use cases, yes. But for general, web and mobile apps, I just think it is too much complexity you can't simplify away, or at least none of the box-dragging UIs seem to have achieved that.
I agree this can be a big market, but a shift is needed to make it actually easy, not "look how easy it is" easy. Taking a different tac, maybe there's just not a market for it. The browser/HTML/JS is everywhere. It's not that hard to build a simple tool or app, but people in orgs use Excel, they don't build a simple page, even. It's not because they couldn't learn how, but somehow that just now what people in orgs do. I don't know why.
The tool I use has three user types: Maker, Editor, and Viewer. Only Makers can make the kinds of changes that would be code. Editors can manipulate the underlying data. Viewers, of course, get read only.
The nice thing about this model is that it implies there's a bar to be a Maker and other users can't break your work. You need to be able to reason about concepts like DRY, star schema, cardinality, etc. As a Maker in my org (15-30K people depending on where we are with the pandemic) I can support many no-code apps painlessly in addition to my primary responsibilities, whereas one CRUD app on Heroku had me feeling spread pretty thin.
Part of it is probably that editing a spreadsheet feels much like a direct manipulation of the medium, where programming is much more abstract, made of descriptions.
From what I understand "solo founder == bad" is a pretty common view held by both YC and a number of other accelerators. If they all believe this then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, and smart people will rapidly find another founder before they go through YC whether they needed one or not.
According to Paul Graham the key reason why YC thinks teams are better is phycological support. But you can get that support by joining a proper peer support system instead, e.g. https://growthclub.online. Disclaimer: I am the founder of GrowthClub.
the thing I like about " old School " Unix systems is you can have a bunch of users on there and they can chat to each other with message.... and it's so easy to set up
I think hallucinogens might "turn the dial" on our quantum consciousness and "tune you in" to different parts of the signal, possibly meaning they can "entangle" the quantum structures in our minds with persistent information structures present somewhere. Maybe they do this randomly, or perhaps each drug is "frequency locked" to some particular part of the "spectrum" (not that I think it's anything so simple as a spectrum defined by a couple of parameters like 'virbation frequency' or whatever, but...), because there are often the same qualia reported for some chemicals independent of the person or setting (like DMT, apparently everybody on that saw an entity once).
Maybe the way chems affect us like this, is the same with getting into altered states without drugs. Or, to take a line from the matrix, "disrupt your input/output carrier signal" (as the red pill did).
> I think hallucinogens might "turn the dial" on our quantum consciousness and "tune you in" to different parts of the signal, possibly meaning they can "entangle" the quantum structures in our minds with persistent information structures present somewhere.
I'd be interested in a quantum theory where this statement made sense, to be sure.
Penrose's ideas about quantum consciousness are widely challenged and not the mainstream, and his basing it on the Incompleteness Theorems is especially problematic, as those only even make sense in the context of certain kinds of formal systems. The later Orch-OR theory has been falsified, in fact:
hehehe. chuckle. it's like giant orgs make an art out of dysfunction, more sophisticated and sophisticated levels of dysfunction. as if refinement of dysfunction to its highest potential was the ultimate aim.
