This made everyone scream and lose their minds saying that code is finished, people think they don't need a technical cofounder anymore, think they don't need engineers anymore, etc. Then they're, at varying speeds, finding out they're wrong.
It seems oddly circular to me that the _exact hubris_ non-engineers have long accused engineers of - and we have indeed been too often guilty of - they themselves turn out to be JUST as guilty of! Just like engineers thought all sales did was bother people, and all marketing did was send emails, and all support did was tell people to turn it off and on again, and all product did was copy google... they all apparently thought all engineers did was tik-tak-click-clack type code all day and when it compiled it was done. Not knowing how much higher-order... well, engineering, there is to it.
Where are all the CTOs during all of this? I thought someone was supposed to be sticking up for their org? Sales, marketing, etc all seem to have entrenched C-suite people keeping their fiefdoms resistant to erosion by outsourcing, downsizing, etc. But all our CTOs seems to have collectively thrown us to the wolves.
I have hardly ever seen this kind of hubris among software developers. The only thing that was common was many software developers were - let's say - somewhat direct in their feedback towards people who are not willing to learn.
I thus rather have the feeling that this kind of accusation of hubris towards software developers rather originates in business people projecting their own overconfidence (hubris) onto software developers.
Dilbert's entire schtick is the profound ineptitude of "business people".
i mean, sure, the marketing one may be a bit simplified as the emails also need to have pretty pictures in them. and yeah, sure, sales people do need to find the people they’ll eventually start bothering later.
/s
> But all our CTOs seems to have collectively thrown us to the wolves.
the kind of person who usually finds their way into the executive class doesn’t get there by looking after those under them. they get there by avoiding blame and taking credit.
which, funnily enough, is exactly what a hype cycle is all about.
For instance, while I now know that file systems have permissions, before I became a programmer, I spent maybe ten years thinking of permissions as a special, obscure system thing that you should never touch.
For that matter, I suspect many people don't know basic things like that a file system isn't inherently the operating system.
And, where would you go to learn this information? Your Mac doesn't ship with a manual—how would you know one exists? Furthermore, I would wager that perhaps most people have never learned how anything works requiring a manual and are simply unaware that that's a thing.
All to say, I'm not sure "refusal" is the right term.
Once I saw an instruction that was circled with an arrow pointing to is that said:
man man
man -k -or- apropos
I just typed `man man` in a terminal on my Mac, and luckily its still there.
Well that is kind of ironic, isn't it?
The requested feature wouldn't be a robust solution here either for the same reasons.
Besides, have you noticed the amount of other amateur-hour bugs anf jank in Codex going for weeks or months without proper resolution? Given that, why would you want and trust their solution here over alternatives, specifically?