4 ms·

People don't code because A) They are not interested in coding. B) They do not have the ressources to learn coding C) Coding has nothing to do with their job D)

People don't code because A) They are not interested in coding. B) They do not have the ressources to learn coding C) Coding has nothing to do with their job D) They are too lazy / no will to learn to code. Hell, I know to code. I code daily, it's my job. And I pretty much NEVER coded as a hobby. I don't see why non-programmers would take up coding...

dingaling 13y ago
E) They don't have time to code off-hours I have a list of things-to-code as long as my arm, lots of little utilities and websites I want to create. But once I knock-off work at the end of the day, have dinner and perform the daily ablutions I simply don't have time. It is frustrating.
- lukifer 13y ago
  It is for this very reason that I think that Basic Income [1] can/will someday be a net wealth creator, even if 95% of its recipients end up sitting on their asses. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income
  - gshubert17 13y ago
    Not just that. With guaranteed basic income, in effect everyone has f-you money. No employer could easily coerce employees to do what they don't think is right: the employees could more easily walk away. We could eliminate copyrights. After all, with basic income, artists and creators are getting paid. Some might release their work to the public domain right away. Others might pursue different publishing options. All sorts of corporate (not just individual) welfare benefits could be eliminated; after all, everyone is getting a basic income. Basic income would greatly shift power from the most wealthy back to ordinary people. It could be that the effects would be profoundly democratic.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > Not just that. With guaranteed basic income, in effect everyone has f-you money. No employer could easily coerce employees to do what they don't think is right: the employees could more easily walk away. While a basic income guarantee would reduce the capacity for coercion, unless you have fantastic levels of productivity such that you can have very high output with very low labor input, its not going to be anything like what is usually considered "F-you" money. > We could eliminate copyrights. After all, with basic income, artists and creators are getting paid. The purpose of copyrights is to create a marginal incentive to create, which basic income does not do. OTOH, a well-established basic income guarantee would further weaken the case for very long term copyrights -- but the case for that has always been weak, anyway.
      - pessimizer 13y ago
        >its not going to be anything like what is usually considered "F-you" money. If you have no need to save for retirement, "f-you"'s become free.
      - lukifer 13y ago
        > The purpose of copyrights is to create a marginal incentive to create Income is not the only incentive to create. Many are drawn to the impulse that Eddie Izzard calls "creativist": rather than making things in order to make money, make money in order to make things. Currently, copyrights and markets are the least-worst way we've found to enable these creations to bootstrap, but if we can do better, we should. > unless you have fantastic levels of productivity such that you can have very high output with very low labor input The combination of robotics and software make a high-output/low-labor future highly probable, if not inevitable. How long it will take until Basic Income is affordable is debatable.
        dragonwriter 13y ago
        > The combination of robotics and software make a high-output/low-labor future highly probable, if not inevitable. Sure. But the future is, you know, different than the present. > How long it will take until Basic Income is affordable is debatable. Some level of Basic Income guarantee is affordable now. What varies with productivity is the level at which Basic Income is sustainable.
- vonmoltke 13y ago
  Time and energy. I'm fortunate to have a day job that is challenging and engaging, and by the time I'm done with that for the day I usually just want to recharge for the next day. If I'm feeling particularly energized I often end up staying later instead of going home to work on things. Plus, I have a list of non-coding projects competing for my time as well. Often if I do work on anything its one of those, because the context switch is easier for me and the problems are different than what I was just dealing with in the office.
afterburner 13y ago
"I don't see why non-programmers would take up coding" Because coding lets you do neat, fun things? Video games are a big motivator for many.
- Raphmedia 13y ago
  Yes, the geeky type will love taking up programming. But most already learn at least some coding. I'm taking about most people outside that target demographics. I'm thinking about my cousin that work as a mechanician, she can use her computer to go on facebook and look at her emails, but not much else. If I told her "learn coding!" she would reply "learn to fix cars!". It makes no sense that I would expect her to learn coding and it makes no sense that she would expect me to learn how to fix an engine. Sure, I know how to change my oil. Well, she know how to defragment her computer.

dingaling 13y ago

E) They don't have time to code off-hours I have a list of things-to-code as long as my arm, lots of little utilities and websites I want to create. But once I knock-off work at the end of the day, have dinner and perform the daily ablutions I simply don't have time. It is frustrating.

lukifer 13y ago
It is for this very reason that I think that Basic Income [1] can/will someday be a net wealth creator, even if 95% of its recipients end up sitting on their asses. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income
- gshubert17 13y ago
  Not just that. With guaranteed basic income, in effect everyone has f-you money. No employer could easily coerce employees to do what they don't think is right: the employees could more easily walk away. We could eliminate copyrights. After all, with basic income, artists and creators are getting paid. Some might release their work to the public domain right away. Others might pursue different publishing options. All sorts of corporate (not just individual) welfare benefits could be eliminated; after all, everyone is getting a basic income. Basic income would greatly shift power from the most wealthy back to ordinary people. It could be that the effects would be profoundly democratic.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > Not just that. With guaranteed basic income, in effect everyone has f-you money. No employer could easily coerce employees to do what they don't think is right: the employees could more easily walk away. While a basic income guarantee would reduce the capacity for coercion, unless you have fantastic levels of productivity such that you can have very high output with very low labor input, its not going to be anything like what is usually considered "F-you" money. > We could eliminate copyrights. After all, with basic income, artists and creators are getting paid. The purpose of copyrights is to create a marginal incentive to create, which basic income does not do. OTOH, a well-established basic income guarantee would further weaken the case for very long term copyrights -- but the case for that has always been weak, anyway.
    - pessimizer 13y ago
      >its not going to be anything like what is usually considered "F-you" money. If you have no need to save for retirement, "f-you"'s become free.
    - lukifer 13y ago
      > The purpose of copyrights is to create a marginal incentive to create Income is not the only incentive to create. Many are drawn to the impulse that Eddie Izzard calls "creativist": rather than making things in order to make money, make money in order to make things. Currently, copyrights and markets are the least-worst way we've found to enable these creations to bootstrap, but if we can do better, we should. > unless you have fantastic levels of productivity such that you can have very high output with very low labor input The combination of robotics and software make a high-output/low-labor future highly probable, if not inevitable. How long it will take until Basic Income is affordable is debatable.
      - dragonwriter 13y ago
        > The combination of robotics and software make a high-output/low-labor future highly probable, if not inevitable. Sure. But the future is, you know, different than the present. > How long it will take until Basic Income is affordable is debatable. Some level of Basic Income guarantee is affordable now. What varies with productivity is the level at which Basic Income is sustainable.
vonmoltke 13y ago
Time and energy. I'm fortunate to have a day job that is challenging and engaging, and by the time I'm done with that for the day I usually just want to recharge for the next day. If I'm feeling particularly energized I often end up staying later instead of going home to work on things. Plus, I have a list of non-coding projects competing for my time as well. Often if I do work on anything its one of those, because the context switch is easier for me and the problems are different than what I was just dealing with in the office.

afterburner 13y ago

"I don't see why non-programmers would take up coding" Because coding lets you do neat, fun things? Video games are a big motivator for many.

Raphmedia 13y ago
Yes, the geeky type will love taking up programming. But most already learn at least some coding. I'm taking about most people outside that target demographics. I'm thinking about my cousin that work as a mechanician, she can use her computer to go on facebook and look at her emails, but not much else. If I told her "learn coding!" she would reply "learn to fix cars!". It makes no sense that I would expect her to learn coding and it makes no sense that she would expect me to learn how to fix an engine. Sure, I know how to change my oil. Well, she know how to defragment her computer.