121–130 of 203 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wouldn't blame them either, but I sure as hell wouldn't hire them.
Why? If they do good work and meet or exceed expectations, who cares why they're doing it?
Or they will refuse to self invest, which makes them a worse long term investment for a company.
In silicon valley, apartment rents are up 20% relative to one year ago. People are getting hired, clearly. Not sure who.
Or people who were remote got called back to the office. Or they lost their job while living elsewhere and had to move to the Bay to find a new one. An increase in the net number of jobs is not the only possible explanation. The jobs might just be changing their geographic requirements. Anecdotally, I know one couple who is selling their house to move back to a tech hub for better job opportunities. Another couple wo…
That's not the explanation according to this article [1].
> Or they lost their job while living elsewhere and had to move to the Bay to find a new one.
It is hard to afford Bay Area rents -- even if you have a job. I can't see someone looking for a job signing a 1-year lease at these rates. Also, unlike the old days, interviews are remote, being physically present in the Bay Area doesn't give you an advantage.
[1] https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/remote-work-stab...
We don’t need to rebuild the ladder, and we don’t need juniors. By the time the seniors leave the job market, the software engineer profession as we know it simply won’t exist. I very much doubt that there will be the higher level architect position either. If Fable 5 is anything to go by, we’re all replaceable within 12 to 24 months. The rest is social inertia.
In my experience with all agents, including Fable, is that they work great when there is automated validation. But as soon as it needs to design something, it just keeps adding so much slop.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> they're clearly in it just for the money It's a job, working for someone else. What other reason is there?
Some people have a passion for their craft and use that to generate money. There is a difference between people who just are there for the money and people that are there for the money and the implementing their craft.
Remove the need to pay bills and you'll be left with no one applying for a crappy job making money for someone else.
Implementing the craft has nothing to do with putting up with employment and employers, workplace harassment, waking up at unhealthy hours, wasting most of one's time awake doing things for someone else...
I've interviewed a ton of junior engineers. Our company was senior-heavy and we're just now diversifying. 80% of them should reconsider their career paths. They glaringly cheat during interviews, they can't answer basic software questions, and they're clearly in it just for the money. They were never interested in software. They just saw the success of software engineers that put in a lot of work, and were fooled by…
> They glaringly cheat during interviews, they can't answer basic software questions, and they're clearly in it just for the money. I'm curious what they do to cheat during interview?
The article makes the false assumption that you can only get better at software engineering by a 1:1 interaction when someone better. It doesn't address that AI can take this role. It doesn't address that there doesn't have to be a job market for junior developers for more senior developers to be created. There are other ways like reading or creating your own software to become senior level.
Juniors can't become seniors without doing real work and using their brains to do it. There is no profession, trade, or skill that you can get good at without doing it.
I feel it has rather created an opportunity for a junior programmer to deliver 5x faster than before and it has lowered the barriers to be a decent junior developer. Perhaps in today's job market for junior devs what changed are the metrics against which they are judged for. It's not just knowing theory of coding, it's about speed at which you ship and most importantly quality. Ultimately, how good is such a develope…
The problem is that someone has to oversee the junior and the multiplier on productivity also applies to the overseer. So you could have the senior oversee the junior or just have them oversee Claude.
There are non technical people building and shipping software. That’s fine, but not all software is equal: the software you release and it’s behind an ecommerce platform (or a bank, or a hospital, or the train system) is not like the software behind your custom-made productivity app. I think for the former software we still need people with the title “software engineer” And as systems become more complex with time, w…
I as a senior am still called in to consult and shoot down attempts to actually integrate it into the wider system without triggering a full technical review.
I've interviewed a ton of junior engineers. Our company was senior-heavy and we're just now diversifying. 80% of them should reconsider their career paths. They glaringly cheat during interviews, they can't answer basic software questions, and they're clearly in it just for the money. They were never interested in software. They just saw the success of software engineers that put in a lot of work, and were fooled by…
> they're clearly in it just for the money That's often how jobs work. I happen to like my job, but let's not pretend like everyone is going to make sufficient money following their most passionate interests.
Anecdotal in my experience, but that also used to be the case for most CS majors back when I graduated... but that was well before the rise of the FAANGs.
We don’t need to rebuild the ladder, and we don’t need juniors. By the time the seniors leave the job market, the software engineer profession as we know it simply won’t exist. I very much doubt that there will be the higher level architect position either. If Fable 5 is anything to go by, we’re all replaceable within 12 to 24 months. The rest is social inertia.
How will AIs train on new tech without new data to train on? On the bright side, maybe that means the end of new javascript frameworks every 6 months :)