31–40 of 76 posts
Allowing non-technical PMs to ship code is fine if they’re the one getting called up in the evenings and weekends when it breaks. Maybe it’s a good exercise to show how much has effort must be applied to each commit.
Copyright issues don't seem to be addressed by any large language model provider. If an LLM is trained on GPL code then that code has become an intrinsic part of the model (because if it hasn't then what was the value of training on it). So shouldn't that model now also be licensed GPL? And how do I know the LLM output is not reproducing substantial chunks of GPL'd code, making my code GPL?
There were some good insights in there. I like the idea of changing the hiring interview process to focus on testing code review ability. I feel like this would have been useful even before AI. A candidate who can identify tradeoffs present in some code and make insightful comments is likely good at systems thinking. It's a highly effective way to test someone's knowledge, intelligence and taste. It's actually brilli…
There could still be a lot subtly wrong, but there are going to be stress points and high leverage validation methods you can use to avoid reading the whole 15k.
Allowing non-technical PMs to ship code is fine if they’re the one getting called up in the evenings and weekends when it breaks. Maybe it’s a good exercise to show how much has effort must be applied to each commit.
Interesting comment because there are some companies that have a different model where SREs take on call for code that SWEs write. How do they work?
Don't want to be called? Don't make incidents. Healthy orgs, as a peer comment points out, avoid too much separation between the positions. Things like change review are supposed to avoid this, but often gets rubber-stamped for 'velocity' (into a wall).
Allowing non-technical PMs to ship code is fine if they’re the one getting called up in the evenings and weekends when it breaks. Maybe it’s a good exercise to show how much has effort must be applied to each commit.
Interesting comment because there are some companies that have a different model where SREs take on call for code that SWEs write. How do they work?
As a former CTO, nothing is less likely to make me believe a claim than prefixing it with "CTOs agree..."
There were some good insights in there. I like the idea of changing the hiring interview process to focus on testing code review ability. I feel like this would have been useful even before AI. A candidate who can identify tradeoffs present in some code and make insightful comments is likely good at systems thinking. It's a highly effective way to test someone's knowledge, intelligence and taste. It's actually brilli…
As a former CTO, nothing is less likely to make me believe a claim than prefixing it with "CTOs agree..."
They should think about what happens when expectations are so high that a single dev must deliver and maintain multiple products. What stops that single dev from leaving and offering the same product on his own.