Movie tickets won't skyrocket. The price to make content will only go down. Best case, creators will be able to make better movies w/ a fraction of the $$ (faster iteration on concepts, cheaper CGI, no need to hire extras, etc). Worst case, movie makers don't find AI useful and ticket prices stay the same.
Worth noting that the weird artifacts and morphing transitions that seem to be "free" and perhaps too abundant in AI videos would've probably been impossible or extremely difficult to create otherwise.
To me, that's the value of shadcn (conceptually) - it's nothing more than a tool to bootstrap your own UI library.
It let's you copy in snapshots and change/edit/refine as you go. You own the UI kit the moment you copy it in. I see Shadcn 'upgrades' as nothing more than a stranger's PR to my UI kit, which usually means useless noise, unless there's a specific feature/bug that I need.
Honestly that’s about the only thing I like in shadcn. It makes scaffolding your UI kit extremely easy, but then you own it and can extend it in whatever way makes sense for you. Unfortunately I’m allergic to Tailwind, and React-only makes it a no-go for me, too :(
There are alternatives, of course, but what I’d like to see is a kinda unified component API spec that you can implement however you like, which both humans and AI can pick up without having to learn whatever idiosyncratic props you might have chosen. So I guess, I’d like to see other libraries use shadcn props with “sane”¹ implementation under the hood?
(¹ – in my case, just plain old Svelte components with inline CSS and/or CSS modules :-)
Totally agree that LinkedIn rewards toxic mediocrity, but do believe there are ways to avoid those parts of the platforms.
For example, stop following toxically mediocre connections.
LinkedIn will show you things based on what you follow/like/engage with. In my experience, there's troves of real operators posting genuine and helpful advice.
