It‘s only unwinnable for Russia. Ukraine is defending itself, successfully.

The sentiment was the exact opposite of what you described.

And the problems Germany has currently are mostly unrelated to the war.

It appears you are living in a different algorithmic reality.

The root cause of everything going wrong in Germany is the war and cutting themselves off from Russian energy.

The rapid de-industrialization, economic stagnation, ballooning deficits, removing the debt brake, new massive military debts, etc.

All of it is being economically felt by normal people and they’re scapegoating brown people (immigrants) as a result. If Germany still had cheap Russian gas and was still growing its economy 3% per year you would not be seeing any of this go mainstream.

Here are the natural gas prices for Europe: https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/eu-natural-gas If you look at the price from summer 2021 on you will see a sharp rise in prices. The reason was that Russia stopped supplying the spot market. https://www.martenscentre.eu/blog/how-gazprom-manipulated-th... Russia also bought European gas storage capacity to let it sit empty and worsen the situation. All of these actions did not make much economic sense. They did however make a lot of sense when Russia invaded Ukraine and tried to use the gas supply for black mail. Their bad luck was that their hegemon China did not give Russia permission to invade till the end of the Chinese winter Olympics. Olympics ended on the 20th and invasion started on the 24th of february which made the gas threat far less potent.

I know Lenin said: "The capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them" but to suggest continuing the business relationship with Russia is beyond silly. It would show that Germany has no rudimentary survival mechanisms and put its viability as a political entity in serious doubt.

Coding with AI falls in one of three categories:

1. The thing to be written is available online. AI is a search engine to find it, maybe also translate it to the language of choice.

2. The thing (system or component or function) is genuinely new. The spec has to be very precise and the AI is just doing the typing. This is, at best working around syntax issues, such as some hard-to-remember particular SQL syntax or something like that. The languages should be better.

3. It‘s neither new nor available online but a lot to type out and modify. The AI does all the boilerplate. This is a failure of the frameworks and languages to require so much boilerplate.

I’m really happy to see this take. It’s not the first time but it’s not said often enough. I once had the thought that anything AI can do really well is probably something that should not be being done at all. That’s an overly broad statement but I think there’s some truth in it. The grand challenge of software engineering is to find beautifully elegant and precise ways to express what we want the computer to do for us. If we can find them, it will be better to express ourselves in those ways than to prompt an AI than do it for us, much in the same way that a blog written by an LLM is not worth reading.

There's another category (possibly a subset of 1), the implementation is novel but set of requirements is known and has a set of conformance tests so tight that the LLM can basically brute force its way to a solution. See e.g. the Claude Compiler thing. In this case it's less "search engine + translator" and more of "brute force search".

How is a C compiler novel? There are so many open source C compilers. If you can download a bunch of different open source projects and they all work then it is not a novel problem, it is as solved as you can get already.

Really I don't think frameworks have kept up and LLMs are the hammer in Law of the Hammer.