Live data from Hacker News

If you are asking for human attention, demonstrate human effort

tombedor.dev

331–340 of 551 posts

Re: If you are asking for human attention, demonstrate human effort

#331
post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The latter has an easy fix: the perpetrator is not allowed to take new work while there are pending review comments left unaddressed.

By perpetrator you mean the person postponing performing a code review? Right? Right?! Otherwise you place all burden on high performers to not only push PRs but babysit the rest of the team. It's not an easy fix, especially with AI letting people cosplay as high performers.

> you place all burden on high performers

If their PRs don't get merged they don't perform. It is trivial to overload your coworkers with secondary tasks due to your "high performance".

Re: If you are asking for human attention, demonstrate human effort

#332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comprehensive end-to-end tests and CI can only attest to correctness , most engineers worth their salt won't review code only in regards to that aspect though.

In the bad old days before auto-formatters and linters, PRs were heavily used to enforce style guidelines. If we can enforce both style and correctness in our CI pipeline, what is actually left?

If the correctness check was vibecoded there's a good chance it was cheated. So maybe that, on top of the, you know, code review (see the sibling comment).

While PRs may have been used to correct style, that shouldn't have been their only or even main purpose. That's on whoever was using it that way, not on the concept of reviews.

Re: If you are asking for human attention, demonstrate human effort

#333
post #34

A very prolific coworker who fully embraced claude has inflicted the team with a flood of AI-generated PRs. About six months later, it is his frequent bemoaning at the standup that their PR don't get reviewed, languishing in inattention. I don't think anyone - including myself - _intentionally_ avoid his PRs. It's just that he doesn't make it easy for the team to look at. This single headline perfectly captures what…

I improved a similar issue by writing custom instructions for copilot that give it enough context to do PR reviews that are only 30% BS.

I asked other team members to run my custom instructions to perform a review with copilot before they submit...

Of course no one is doing it. It looks like the PRs I get are still straight from copilot. So I tend to run my review prompt. Cut out the 30% BS issues it "finds" and the rest is good.

Re: If you are asking for human attention, demonstrate human effort

#334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is what I've been doing, and obviously I have a startup so I need to double-ensure that I don't onboard any bads. you can start people off as contractors too. I still think a single in person LC style (doesn't have to be LC per se, could be domain specific) logical thinking/reasoning exercise is useful. I want to ensure the person can actually put 2 and 2 together and think. This is just a fast filter. If they s…

Firing fast works both ways. If I joined your company and I thought you fired someone too fast I would leave, not because I might get fired, but because I've seen where that kind of leadership takes things.

thats fine you can leave. it’s probably for the best for us. that’s why the mission is so important and requires a great filter.

mass effect 2 is my favorite game ever. it is all about putting together the team, and ensuring you work with each one of them to get their whole loyalty.

each member is a badass, in their own regard. it’s also a video game and it’s linear unlike real life. but the mission is super important to me.

and when others have their own passions they want to express and carry out via fulfilling the mission, that’s super key imo.

so far it’s worked out fine. people get the fast firing thing. they know if someone isn’t onboard with carrying out the mission they also don’t want to be burdened.

like we are seriously helping people in an underserved industry. it’s insane.

i hate working with mids and bads, they are going to bring everyone else down. so i want to work with the best people i can get. they don’t need to be MIT grads paper weight types. they just need to be mission oriented and focused.

Re: If you are asking for human attention, demonstrate human effort

#335
"Don't expend more effort than they are" has actually long been a good principle to have internalized. Someone done only cursory research before asking a question on a mailing list? Give a cursory answer. Someone obviously spent hours trying to figure things out on their own? Give them a good chunk of your time. Someone on HN responding to you with single-sentence responses? Either don't respond, or respond in kind. Someone obviously engaging with your ideas and taking time to explain their position? Take time to engage with their ideas too.

Re: If you are asking for human attention, demonstrate human effort

#336
post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I get a disturbing number of people who say things like "I would communicate with the person asking for this to see what they're really intending blah blah" Sounds like they know this question is a “gotcha” question but just misinterpreted which direction you were going with it. Some will ask a question like this expecting you to treat it like a puzzle and outline how you’d solve it as-is; others ask it as a way to…

No, it's a pretty good interview question because it tells me if somebody's instinct is to reinvent the wheel or not. What I didn't expect was how many people couldn't say how a wheel even works.

Its not. Any interview question where you are looking for a specific answer is already suspect, but especially if you don't properly provide context for the question in what you would expect, things become a shit show.

If you would ask someone to write a piece of code, and a part of the problem is this conversion, then you would be right to expect they reach for a library, but even if they don't you would be giving them the opportunity to explain themselves, and judge the explanation, not the answer. Also, if your test is "does this person reach for a library at the right time", you could do a lot less esoteric and confusing by just asking them to add 10 days to a date. If you just ask this one specific problem, it is likely they assume you are looking for them to demonstrate the skills involved in actually solving the problem, i.e. leetcode.

This is also why some people give you the blabla answer, because it is indeed very unlikely that someone needs to do this legitimately. This is because its a toy problem. Someone's professional reaction to the problem in isolation should indeed be: this is weird, I've never been asked something like this, what's up?

Finally, even though the question is terrible, I would still rate the "whatsup?" response higher than the "leapyear" response. I would want a developer to triple check that this problem needs solving, before they would solve it themselves.

Finally finally, if there's one answer to one question that, when answered trivially in a way literally taught in most basic programming courses (use the standard library / a third party library), makes them a "guaranteed hire", I also have significant doubts about the level of talent you are bringing in, as any experienced interviewer will tell you that qualified people will get important questions wrong, and unqualified people will get important questions right.

I understand that this reaction might be quite harsh, and I know better than anyone that its hard and time consuming to do good interviews, but please consider that you are rejecting people who may be very confused and sad by this way of rejection.

Re: If you are asking for human attention, demonstrate human effort

#337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who pushed ~4x the median PRs on my team before LLMs were a thing, I kind of think the problem here is PRs as a concept. Code review doesn't scale to prolific humans, it definitely can't scale to agents. And the exact same things you would need to safely give up on PRs for human developers (auto-formatters, linters, comprehensive end-to-end tests, continuous deployment pipelines, etc), are also things that…

> Code review doesn't scale to prolific humans If that's genuinely your attitude then your org has a problem. Code review is slow and less fun, for the average sw eng. But for high quality work it's indispensable. So treat code reviews as a scarce resource. Optimize for code reviewer time and attention. Have your PRs the right size? Are they well described? Do you give context? Do they fit in the bigger story? Do you…

> But for high quality work [a code review is] indispensable.

The argument here is that all code reviews are done with attention and care, but quality of a code review is highly dependent on the reviewer and the team’s review process, and in the real world the quality of reviews pretty much follow the same distribution curve as, say, agile project management: For the time invested in reviewing, a handful of teams get excellent utility from them, most teams get little benefit, and a sad few actually cause harm.

If most code reviews provide only a little benefit at base for most teams, recommending that most teams should also delay shipping quality work is going to sound a lot like bad advice.

Re: If you are asking for human attention, demonstrate human effort

#338

This headline has been seeing some popularity. But it's never made any sense. This is just the labor theory of value, applied to documents. The labor theory of value doesn't work for documents any more than it works for anything else. If I do something that's easy for me, and it's valuable to you, you'll still want it. If I do something that's difficult for me, it will be less valuable to you, because the difficulty…

I think the point is that automatically-generated documents by LLM is lower quality the manually-generated ones or at least guaranteed lower quality than automatically-generated + manually-reviewed.

Therefor if you are not putting human effort on the document it is low-value.

We have seen this before when big data started to be a thing, tons and tons of reports being auto-produced weekly (or even daily), but even if they contain relevant information they are low-value because no one can take action on so much information.

Re: If you are asking for human attention, demonstrate human effort

#339
post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Lots of teams and developers do code review wrong In this sense, I'm not sure I've ever seen a team that does codereview "right". In the before times, most PR feedback was stylistic, with the occasional bug identified. Now that we have ubiquitous auto-formatters/linters/CI, most PR review falls into either "you misunderstood the spec", or "I disagree with your architectural choices" - and my personal feeling is tha…

> most PR feedback was stylistic, with the occasional bug identified. I think that only speaks for your own experience. I have definitely seen more than a few PRs that needed significant work.

Yeah, that's fair. I have spent most of my career on high-pressure teams within FAANG, where we aggressively managed-out anyone who wasn't making the grade. And now in the startup world, we apply a very aggressive hiring bar.

I'm not sure how much I'd enjoy working on teams who were routinely producing PRs that were in bad shape.

Re: If you are asking for human attention, demonstrate human effort

#340
post #335

"Don't expend more effort than they are" has actually long been a good principle to have internalized. Someone done only cursory research before asking a question on a mailing list? Give a cursory answer. Someone obviously spent hours trying to figure things out on their own? Give them a good chunk of your time. Someone on HN responding to you with single-sentence responses? Either don't respond, or respond in kind.…

It takes considerable energy to train models and run inference. You can't dismiss AI generated content as "low effort", but you can dismiss it as a wasteful diversion.
Post reply on HN