Tariffs might be a cause of the next recession, but they aren’t a sign of some fundamentalists on perpetual growth like OP was asking about. They’re just the arbitrary doing of one man.

Isn’t this just a cheeky joke? I.e. “if Einstein is right about this whole theory of relatively thing”

It’s in uncharitable to say the benefits are lost - I’d reframe it as creating tradeoffs.

I knot you’re not OP, but and while this explanation is good, it doesn’t make sense to frame all this as a “problem” for parquet. It’s just a file format, it isn’t intended to have this sort of scope.

The problem is that the "parquet is beautiful" is extended all the time to pointless things - pq doesn't support appending updates so let's merge thousands of files together to simulate a real table - totally good and fine.

I’m getting this sense too, as my own employer is starting to add AI features. The pitches for what is possible are not grounded in what engineers know the system can do, they’re just assumptions about “if we give the LLM these inputs, we’d expect to see these outputs that are accurate enough for meaningful productivity gains.”

I’m not an AI skeptic, but it’ll be interesting to see how we manage the uncertainty in these projects.

It seems like that’s the main conclusion of TFA as well.

What did you ask it that blew you away?

Every time I see a comment about someone getting excited about some new AI thing, I want to go try and see for myself, but I can't think of a real world use case that is the right level of difficulty that would impress me.

I asked it to expand an article with further information about the topic, and it searched online and that’s what it did.

I agree with this, but would also point out that many junior engineers I've worked with completely give and ask for help if the program doesn't do what they want it to and prints out many lines of help. Even if there is a clear message at the top of the large output, they get overwhelmed.

You can of course - I think the point here is it's different people with different goals writing the CLI lib vs the application.

So it's often not the case that a single person who made the decision to have a message that says "you asked for help, but you did it wrong; before I give you help you have to ask correctly."

"this dependency I picked at random from CPAN doesn't support that" is a pretty weak excuse for shipping a poor user experience

No, they are saying that code style, minting rules, and other minutia are not the essence of the craft. Which I agree with.

You have to read between the lines to pick that up though, so your criticism seems valid.