There's an old Latin proverb "Scribere bis legere", which translates to "writing is reading twice".
In practice, what this means is that you can read some subject many times, but you would still struggle to reproduce the content by yourself. That is why, when learning, it is not sufficient to just read the material several times.
I was thinking of the more recent quake which I very much felt and heard in my older detached home in Queens. I was in Farmingdale out in Suffolk during the 2011 quake. I got up to walk from my desk, took a few steps then suddenly became disoriented for a few seconds as if I was dizzy. Then my coworker shouts "Holy shit did you just feel that? That was an earthquake!"
https://factorio.com/blog/post/fff-388 - they wanted to use a 64 bit int for the tick count, but Lua doesn't have one; so they used the one available and worked out when it would lose precision.
"More than 2 million years seems to be enough for us to not be around any more when the bug reports start appearing."
I once saw a pop-up in a game saying something along the lines of: wow, it's 10 years later and this game is still being played! Made me laugh out loud, nice little easter egg.
Sadly, I don't recall which game it was. Maybe SpaceChem?
Food is much more expensive, like 30% here in Europe, much faster growth than inflation. And before you state that food is accounted for in inflation: economists are doing some dirty tricks here by finding subpar replacements.
Cars are also much more expensive for the same quality, far surpassing inflation.
I will concede TVs and electronic gadgets, though.
> Cars are also much more expensive for the same quality, far surpassing inflation.
Cars are much, much more value then they used to be.
The Slate truck is as close to what cars used to be in the seventies. No power steering, no power brakes, no crumple zones, no fuel injection, etc. All those features cost a lot of money yet the amount of money spent on cars really hasn't gone up in accordance.
A 1970 Honda Civic cost 2k base. A base model today appears to be around 25k. that's more than inflation but it's also a luxury car, in comparison.
The vehicle market is less about low pricing as much as it is feature sets at price points. In other words, the prices stay roughly static but they pack in more features.
Well, speaking from what I hear and see, employers want you to start using it so that you can be more productive. They've been sold this tool and want you to learn it so that your output will grow.
That's not an unfair take, I think. Again, just IME, they expect too much because the tool is oversold: it does not deliver that well. And we always hear, this new model is so much better, it's tiring.
I think we should all learn to use LLMs but we should still carefully review what they did. And that is what the employers don't quite get: the review still takes a lot of time. So, gains are not 10x but more like... 10%? Maybe 50 for boiler plate. Still gains are there, I guess.
> they expect too much because the tool is oversold: it does not deliver that well.
And unfortunately a lot of people will say it’s their reports’ fault for not properly utilizing it (even as they barely use it) because otherwise they would have to admit that they bought a tool without any plan for how to deploy it. So regardless of what is or isn’t a fair take, the results are the same. We are burdened with utilizing a thing whether it is useful or not and the results are generally not what is measured, but rather “are you using it?”
I’m just glad I work at a company that has more reasonable expectations and has been very slowly, thoughtfully rolling it out to individuals at the company and assessing what is and isn’t good for. They are interested in getting me in line, but as somebody in video production to be perfectly honest the use case for Claude is a bit tricky to navigate. We don’t write a lot of scripts and I already have bespoke software for organizing/maintaining footage that isn’t on a subscription basis. The work I’m also doing doesn’t call for these speed-editing solutions that generate tik tok chaff. All our stuff is hours long and it’s high volume. Any video-centric AI service costs an arm and a leg.
I do think it could be useful for writing some terminal scripts and such, but as far as a daily tool we are still scratching our heads and thinking about it. But it’s nice to be able to do that without somebody saying “why aren’t you using it?” every meeting.
Why are employers so incompetent to just believe and cargo cult any business trend to come along? Shouldn't they do research first before making wide, sweeping changes in work policy?
I've seen that too, though I have to say that none of those were as waterfally as the actual waterfall process we used to follow. Back then it was quite literally 0 lines of code until spec (100s of pages) is complete.
Which ironically makes Agile even worse at times by forcing developers to implement incomplete spec, parts of which are often rewritten over and over again everytime the PM talks to the client.
A lot of managers confuse "Agile" with fast and think that "agile" teams are going to deliver software faster. In reality, it's often slower than waterfall. If you have a single feature that's never going to change, and you absolutely positively need it by Date X, then you're probably better off with waterfall.
TFA first claims that agile invented none of the things it encompasses, seems not to challenge those claims, but then just jumps to agile is dead because LLMs can code based on spec.
This is just a confusing and confused article.
Agile just finally embraced that specs are incomplete and can even be wrong because the writer of the spec does not yet really know or understand what they want. So they need working software to show the spec in action and then we can iterate on the results.
We are still doing that and will be doing it in the foreseeable future. Agile is very much alive and here to stay.
Iterative development has existed since forever, since earlier than written history.
It is not something invented by the Agile proponents.
They have proposed a much more specific variant of iterative development, which at least as I have seen it implemented in any company which claimed to implement it, was really bad in comparison with the right ways of organizing development work, which I have seen elsewhere.
Any high quality product must be designed starting from a good written specification. Obviously, almost always the initial specification must pass through one or more update cycles, after experience is gathered through the implementation. This has always been universally used, not just by Agile practitioners.
There have always existed bad managers, who wrongly believed that a development process can always be linear and who did not include in their timelines the necessity for loops, but that was just bad management, so if Agile proponents pointed to such cases, those were just strawmen, not the best existing practices.
> Agile just finally embraced that specs are incomplete and can even be wrong because the writer of the spec does not yet really know or understand what they want. So they need working software to show the spec in action and then we can iterate on the results.
I agree, but what you describe is agile, not Agile (capital A).
Agile (capital A) is Scrum (capital S) where you have Backlog Grooming (patent pending) where the team clears any ambiguity to define a spec (ticket).
Deviating from said spec is seen as Scope Creep (gasp) and might lead to complaints during Sprint Review (trademark).
So yes, agile prefers working software over detailed spec. But typical manifestations of Agile (capital A) are exactly the opposite.
You can claim that and it's a comfortable thing to believe but that does not make it true.
If you want to convince somebody who actually seeks truth, you have to make an argument how any country who has started a war recently has had a net economic profit.
Weord position to defend. So: modern wars are not about resources because there's enough food to feed everybody, those wars that are widely understood to be about resources (oil, land) are "distribution problems" and not about resources, and the only way to prove that they are is to show a country-wide economic benefit to the victor directly related to the war...
Confidently dismissing others based on your own weird definitions and shifting goalposts does not make you seem as knowledgeable as you think.
> those wars that are widely understood to be about resources (oil, land)
The Ukraine war was started because Putin wanted it to be his heritage that Ukraine is part of Russia. The Donbas has some mines but nothing that cannot be found eleswhere in the vast expanse of the Russian empire and nothing that Russia couldn't easily have bought with its oil money.
In practice, what this means is that you can read some subject many times, but you would still struggle to reproduce the content by yourself. That is why, when learning, it is not sufficient to just read the material several times.
reply