21–30 of 303 posts
Closing the program is totally reasonable. However, there is another option: Make submitters pay a nominal fee that is returned in the case that a real bug is found.
Closing the program is totally reasonable. However, there is another option: Make submitters pay a nominal fee that is returned in the case that a real bug is found.
I'd say closing a program which doesn't work anymore is a better idea.
Which goes on to prove that bottleneck isn't in writing the code. It is in reading and understanding the code. We all had that one "productive" engineer in our teams who would write huge PRs that would have large swaths of refactoring whether warranted or not and that was way before anyone even could imagine in their wildest dreams that neural networks could generate that huge amounts of code. The net effect of such…
That guy is now running twenty agents in parallel and really scaling up his wonderful impact.
Oh look it's more of exactly what AI skeptics said would happen: low effort bullshit generated at scale making life hell for people actually trying to make things. That's wild. Edit: it is genuinely wild, I don't know of another product category that selects so perfectly for the WORST type of person to be it's enthusiast. Just every single person I see hyped about AI is fucking insufferable on at least one and usuall…
I think people would be more interested in listening to "AI skeptics" if they offered realistic solutions to the problems they predict. Pandora's box has been opened, let's deal with the consequences now instead of trying to shut the box which cannot be shut.
AI is the fucking problem. Yes, it has (some) uses. It is not nearly the number advertised. And more and more the median use case seems to be, again, overloading people actually trying to do work with an avalanche of bullshit.
The solution is exactly what the linked article says: shut it down. The AI people have ruined another good thing that was both beneficial to the project, and to a number of individuals.
Which goes on to prove that bottleneck isn't in writing the code. It is in reading and understanding the code. We all had that one "productive" engineer in our teams who would write huge PRs that would have large swaths of refactoring whether warranted or not and that was way before anyone even could imagine in their wildest dreams that neural networks could generate that huge amounts of code. The net effect of such…
Sounds a like a tactical tornado, made me think of this paragraph: “Almost every software development organization has at least one developer who takes tactical programming to the extreme: a tactical tornado. The tactical tornado is a prolific programmer who pumps out code far faster than others but works in a totally tactical fashion. When it comes to implementing a quick feature, nobody gets it done faster than the…
Oh look it's more of exactly what AI skeptics said would happen: low effort bullshit generated at scale making life hell for people actually trying to make things. That's wild. Edit: it is genuinely wild, I don't know of another product category that selects so perfectly for the WORST type of person to be it's enthusiast. Just every single person I see hyped about AI is fucking insufferable on at least one and usuall…
Which goes on to prove that bottleneck isn't in writing the code. It is in reading and understanding the code. We all had that one "productive" engineer in our teams who would write huge PRs that would have large swaths of refactoring whether warranted or not and that was way before anyone even could imagine in their wildest dreams that neural networks could generate that huge amounts of code. The net effect of such…
Which goes on to prove that bottleneck isn't in writing the code. It is in reading and understanding the code. We all had that one "productive" engineer in our teams who would write huge PRs that would have large swaths of refactoring whether warranted or not and that was way before anyone even could imagine in their wildest dreams that neural networks could generate that huge amounts of code. The net effect of such…
If you don't ever have a massive PR from a dynamite session, then you cannot ever be better than "average and plodding". So the question is, what's the context of the massive PR and how should it be handled?
* Mature product making money, intermediate engineer just refactored everything so it's "better"? Shut the fuck up, kindly please, you will have to demonstrate that you understand why things are this way and why it's better before we even have this conversation.
* Greenfield dev, trusted engineer getting from 0 -> 1 on something big? Maybe it shouldn't be held up in committee for 2 weeks. Maybe most objections will be superficial stylistic concerns.
Obviously there are many other contexts and these are 2 extremes in a multi-dimensional space. But if the process is "we litigate every line", then that's just not an innovative place to be. Yes, most PRs should be small, targeted, easy to review and tied to a ticket but if you're innovating? By definition it's a little different.
Closing the program is totally reasonable. However, there is another option: Make submitters pay a nominal fee that is returned in the case that a real bug is found.
That would add administrative overhead, and even higher incentive for submitters to endlessly argue they're right.
I'm not trying to suggest they _need_ to implement it. Like I said, closing it is reasonable. Completely aside from any other considerations, one could just decide that they don't feel like dealing with it. But there are other options.
Closing the program is totally reasonable. However, there is another option: Make submitters pay a nominal fee that is returned in the case that a real bug is found.
Easily exploitable without much stretch of a thought. I'd say closing a program which doesn't work anymore is a better idea.
If you can think of something that isn't solved by one of those two mechanisms, I'd be interested in hearing them enumerated.