aristofun

> Why do so many people in this forum not understand the article

I understand it deeper than you think.even maybe deeper then author think he does.

The only singals that matter i already mentioned. Everything else must submit to this ultimate goal. If that’s the case there is no reason to invent anything even metaphorically speaking. And platform requirements arise naturally to exact extent the user problem justifies, not more not less etc.

This is probably a fundamental philosophical division between “engineers” who love to engineer for the sake of engineering, who are arrogant enough to treat their trade as an art form even.

And between mere mortals, regular engineers, who are hungry for solving real world problems as efficiently and quickly as possible.

Instead of figuring out the mess and navigating the peculiarities of another “platform team” in a big org.

This article is a good demonstration of what is deeply wrong with today’s corporate IT. And why any big enough company will sooner or later rotten. And why work at such a company these days feel so meaningless and mundane.

For example

> Thankfully, the signals that help us to invent work are already out there, and they arrive from four directions - from the systems, from the users, from your organization, and from the industry. What follows is a guide to reading each of them.

In a good “ideal” org the only source of requirements should be users, aka customers, aka real people, user facing products, teams etc.

There must be no room for speculations and “engineering” (aka over engineering), nor performance review driven development.

I would personally fire anyone “inventing” work. Even if it’s myself.

Can you use yubikey as a primary login mechanism? How?

Otherwise having same password on every service doesn’t look secure, and what would you need to do if it’s compromised.

That really is a bummer, especially on basic older models where 8-20Gb of space wasted on this gimmick even if turned off is not nothing.

Modern big tech software engineering is 98% supporting and maintaining.

What difference does it make? They stopped being funny and original 10+ years ago

Every serious religion worth considering is different and distinct in its fundamental core claims, even if there is a significant influence and overlap on other levels.

No amount of pseudo-philocophical and quasi-historical research can change this basic fact.

Naive attempt of some buddhists to reduce (in their eyes of course its the highest compliment) other religion figures to mere "buddha" label is nothing but silly, laymen kitchen theology. It is disrespectful to both buddhism and other religion.

> risk aversion is driving wisdom

And apples are oranges.

Sorry they are completely different traits. They can go hand in hand or support each other in certain individual, or they can manifest similarly, but its far from being a general rule.

I think “older drivers” pay less primarily because of risk aversion (naturally increasing with reducing hormones production etc), not hypothetical driving wisdom.

I think “older drivers” pay less primarily because of risk aversion, not hypothetical driving wisdom.

Modern Computer keyboard is one of the best and most brilliant piece of ui ever invented.

Far beyond mouse, stylus wich are themselves infinitely superior to touchscreen.

> mapped to produce code deterministically

that means your "spec" is essentially a code and the point you're trying to make is empty

Sometimes truth is not sweet, sorry. And there is no point in sugarcoating even if I'm mistaken, we are all grown ups here.

If european innovative companies and small businesses flourish in 10 years - I'll be the first to apologize and admit the mistake.

But there are just no signs of it today. While plenty of signs and data supporting my point.

I've only actually seen and been part of something resembling "agile" team 2 times in my career. Vs many instances of an org only claiming to be agile.

Those 2 instances were actually pretty enjoyable, educational and very productive team work.

I don't see that anymore these days. I only see teams adopting bits of it (mostly "sprints" idea) without actually trying to make the whole thing work. To some degree - WFH was the last nail in the coffin.

To be fair modern big tech are not made for this. Overwhelming levels of bureacracy, accidental complexity, cross org friction just ruins the "agile" ideas and intended dynamics.

That is exactly why. You are blind to your own problems :)

Europe has been steadily eradicating freedom and entrepreneurial spirit for the past 50 years. They will suffer badly many years later. They are slowly walking to disaster, but nobody cares. Go on, downvote me for telling the obvious truth :)

These meme only makes sense for very small products.

After a certain threshold of complexity and size any software becomes a collection of trade offs and compromises, never something you might call a “clean architecture”. Its a red herring, myth, utopia.

It’s a thousand years old attempt to calculate and reduce the complexity of real world interactions and problems to a bunch of mathematically elegant metaphors and formulas.

The threshold is usually very low - first bunch of real world paying customers, real world usecases, startup market fit etc.

> who's goal?

Who do you think created the discipline? Why? Who invested their resources and capital in its development? Why?

You can downvote me ad much as you can, but it doesn’t make you a special techincally enlightened cookie.

And this wouldn’t magically make programming an art form (ad many of people like you mistakenly think). It was always a trade, not designed to be enjoyed or have fun about (that happens accidentally every now and then).

But even if you consider it an art form, form of expressing identity, individuality - you are free to do that as much as you like. And I would be truly happy for you.

But don’t be naive and arrogant to consider yourself smart vs them dumb juniors. And to be resentful about genuine technological progress in the field.

Sorry to dissapoint but “writing code” or “programming” per se was never a goal to begin with. It was and is just an obstacle, a mean to an end at best.

Therefore it’s not AI fault that you built your identity on sand.

The goal had always been - delivering value, solving problems.

How about building your identity around that and see what happens?

In this context AI is nothing but good news, with proper attitude and skill it helps achieving the goal better, faster.

I don’t think there would be a revolution (not in any positive sense of the word anyway) even of energy problem is solved.

I apologize if my comment looks cynical, i meant it in a friendly informal tone.

This isn’t really a revolution until we have new energy sources. There is no T model until that point. Don’t be silly.

Manufacturers just trying to please tge crowd and brag about _features_, also save money on buttons and decent mechanical components. Crowd is gullible and patient enough to eat this for a while. There is very little to no real need for apps and touch screens in 99% of household tasks and usecases. They only make most of the things worse.

> What is my “main belief,”

couple comments before:

> I don't have a "belief system" other than that I believe things that can be empirically shown to be true with a level of evidence commensurate to the claim.

I'm not interested in debating you.

Just showing that your main belief is at least as irrational and arbitrary as your implied cartoon version of the bible based belief system (because you can't possibly prove or justify it by your own "evidence" standards).

And your comments do impose (even if unintentionally and subtly) this belief system as something more worthy of someone's time.

Which is a) not rational => not objective as I just showed b) therefore it looks very arrogant and ignorant (if you don't like word "dumb", I apologize).

Case closed.

Can you empirically show that your consciousness exists? How can you then be so confident it is objective?

Or prove that objective laws of math and logic exist?

You’re strawmanning the bible here, essentially. That shows the level of your ignorance. These days only ignorant and lazy people stick to purely literal and surface level interpretations of the bible. Just saying. But you are here to assert your “dawkins” grade of atheism, I get it. No worries. Just don’t pretend being objective when imposing your belief system and doubting someone’s hard work.

I applogize for not being perfectly clear with my words.

Now you’re acting stupid again. intentionally?

Your question contains an insulting implication. Accurate quoting of scriptires is obviously aiding research, either personal spiritual or academic and everything in between (why else would you care about accuracy?).

And you showed obvious disrespect to this work, now trying to reframe yourself as if you didn’t mean anything.

Have at least some decency to own and stay your ground.

Care to support your silly insults and claims with serious data points that would scientifically prove and “verify” that help researching civilizations shaping scriptures is worthless?

I guess not, therefore it was a comment from personal resentment and ignorance, aka “dumb”.

This is such a dumb comment on so many levels lol

Same way comp is always set up - based on the market conditions.

Whatever is the lowest expense you can afford to still attract someone you need.

Based on my experience, there is never a lack of young, brave and naive people who still buy into the startup romantics. Or just want some exciting adventures. So many startups' comp partially consists of cool titles, bells and whistles.