This feels similar to articles with titles such as "Why every developer should learn Assembly" or "Relying on NPM packages considered harmful". I appreciate the core of truth inside the sentiment, and the author isn't _wrong_, but it won't matter over time. AI coding ability will improve, whether it's writing, debugging or planning. It will be good enough to produce 90% of the solution with very little input, and 90% is more than enough to go to market, so it will. And yes, it won't be optimal or totally secure, or the abstractions might be questionable but...how is that really different than most real software projects anyway?
Software is the connective tissue of the world, generating mediocre quality results (which will be the best outcome if you don’t really understand what you are looking at) is not just lazy it can be dangerous, do the worlds best engineers make mistakes? Of course they do, but that’s why building high quality software is collaborative process you have to work with others to build better systems. If you aren’t, you are wasting your time.
As of now (and this could change, but that doesn’t change the moral and ethical obligations), software engineers are richly rewarded specifically because they should be able to write and understand high quality code, the code written is the foundation of how our entire modern world is built.
>It will be good enough to produce 90% of the solution with very little input, and 90% is more than enough to go to market, so it will.
What backs up this claim? And when will it reach it?
We could be very well reached a plateau right now, which means looking at previous trends in improvements does not allow us to predict future improvements. If I understand it correctly.
That is a hellish look toward the future. To be clear I don’t think you’re wrong, if companies can squeeze more out of devs by forcing them to use AI I bet they will, move fast and break stuff and all that, but it’s still quite the bummer.
I'd argue it's a hell many other people see daily, and we've been privileged to have the space to care about craft. Corporations have never cared about the craft. The business is paying me to make, and the moment they can get my level of quality and expertise from someone much cheaper, or a machine itself, I'm gone. That dystopia has always been present and we just haven't had to stare it down as much as some other industries have.
I don't think it's really any different than how most products are made currently, do you think most startups are caring about security and things that would slow down their initial release? All the rest is tech debt that can be solved once product market fit is solved.
The only thing I'd worry about is when no one knows how to solve these when everyone relies on AI.
I don't have a real opinion of the value at this point but, to the degree that there are significant productivity enhancement tools available for developers (or many other functions), and they refuse to use them, companies should properly mark those folks down as low performers with the associated consequences.
“It would enhance productivity” is not a sufficient justification for requiring someone to do something. Ignoring safety regulations would often enhance productivity, but I’m sure you understand why we shouldn’t do that.
Ignoring safety regulations would not enhance productivity in the long term, so that example doesn't quite prove the point. Productivity enhancement in general is sufficient justification for a company, as otherwise they can simply fire you, hence, to them, it is sufficient.
I was assuming that other requirements associated with the software were otherwise met. If you're simply less productive all other things being equal, you should probably be at least eased out especially if you're simply refusing to use appropriate tools (assuming those tools actually do enhance productivity).
This is why it needs implementing systemically, and not ad hoc. If no one has social media, no one is being ostracised. If only one person opts out then yes, they risk being ostracised.
100% agreed, which was my point above about studies being done to prove the negative impacts, so everyone could actually get on board, instead of it being done ad hoc.
It took public shaming to start to reduce addiction to cigarettes, after we were able to show how bad they were for you.
"For example." It's a favorite phrase of the various Polish devs I've known, for some reason.
I like it! It looks fun and a little mischievous. I hope someday we start using fx in the same places we use ie or eg.
EDIT: My beautiful Finnish wife informs me t.ex. is also used in Swedish in a very similar way, till exempel or something like that. So maybe it's a Northern European thing too?
I believe it's something along the lines of "flagrant excision" (of established language conventions).
The resultant confusion from such communication innovations may be justifiable in service to a larger goal, e.g. making a clean cultural break from ancient lion-torturing Latin speakers.
Be the change you want to see. Et cetera, et alii.
This is very cool. I am fortunate enough to have access to a pump and have been hacking closed loops for a few years now using software like Nightscout, AndroidAAPS and xDrip+. My understanding is that none of these are exclusive to pump users, they just work a little easier with them. Maybe there is some interplay with these tools that you can leverage?
This is critical and often overlooked when it comes to fully appreciating socio-economic factors that influence a person's capacity to "succeed". People with the resources are simply allowed to fail and recover more times than those without.
> 1. The sound mix has a huge dynamic range now, and lots of action scenes are mixed in with quiet conversation. Set the volume down, and you miss the dialogue. Set the volume up, and you wake up the neighbors.
I was once told, by a salesperson in a TV store that this was essentially "by design" and that the solution they're taught to present is to "buy a soundbar". From his understanding, in the quest to get thinner TV manufacturers sacrificed built-in speaker size and quality, which results in the effect you describe. I am not sure how much is sales patter and how much is truth...but I bought a sound bar!
The smaller speakers in a TV naturally compress the dynamic range because they can't get loud, and especially can't get loud in the lower frequencies that travel more easily through walls. Getting good speakers actually makes the dynamic range problem worse since the loud parts get even louder and travel through walls even easier.
Soundbars have really good margins though, so it's unsurprising that that's the solution they sell!
It is a thing in Romania with larger cars like BMW X5 and so on.
That's mostly because it was fairly easy to get a drivers license with bribes up until a few years after joining EU. (until the anti-corruption agency was set up)
Also due to crappy roads and very aggressive drivers in larger cities. Rich people would just buy the larger car to protect children either from their stupidity or other drivers.
