cline6

100 times this. Maybe this was the thing all along that was so difficult to put our finger on for why some engineers seem to have "it" while so many others, despite being productive, don't. It's just that they loved it. It brings me so much sadness to see so many people happily relegate themselves to typists instead of a person with real motivations and skills.

The article say that "Next.js is well-specified." I... don't think this is actually true. It certainly has lots of documentation, but as has come up time and time again, there are tons of undocumented or poorly documented behaviors that have been the cause of consternation.

So I kinda wonder, did they just create the framework that Next.js claims to be but never has been? And is Next.js without the hidden stuff actually a good framework? Who knows.

The reason this analogy falls down is that tools typically do one thing, do it extremely well, are extremely reliable. When I use a table saw, I know that it's going to cut this board into two pieces, exactly in this spot, and it'll do that exactly the same way every single time I use it.

You cannot tell AI to do just one thing, have it do it extremely well, or do it reliably.

And while there's a lot of opinions wrapped up in it all, it is very debatable whether AI is even solving a problem that exists. Was coding ever really the bottleneck?

And while the hype is huge and adoption is skyrocketing, there hasn't been a shred of evidence that it actually is increasing productivity or quality. In fact, in study after study, they continue to show that speed and quality actually go down with AI.

The results are hardly surprising. Using AI replaces a thing the developers are good at, programming, with a thing they're not good at, getting a digital idiot to program for them. Of course it takes longer.

The failure of every new solution seems to always come back to the fact that html, css, and js are just too poorly suited for building the complex UIs people want today. And the sad reality is that there isn't an engineer out there building these things that has any agency to come up with an alternative.

It would take Google, Apple, and Microsoft coming together to define a new system of building as an alternative. Think things like, new client, new protocol, new language, perhaps not having to write anything resembling markup at all (the joy!),

Obviously the chances of this happening are nil. So we shuffle along adding yet another layer of transformation on top of these broken technologies, hoping it will be enough.

It's their job to stand by the truth of the work. If management can't deal with that, I'd be looking for my next place to work.

"Supposed to take 2 hours"... Who said it should take 2 hours? And an estimate is not a promise. You did the right thing. Sounds like your PM is terrible.

They should laugh and tell you no. Interrogate why they need 2 additional months to build it the right way. Why didn't they build it the right way to begin with, adjusting approach at every step?

In my experience, engineers (I am one too) tend to reach for quick and easy more than correct and hard, and that choice is coming from them, not the business.

The non-local and not end to end encrypted nature of this are my only turn offs. I suspect that's the case for a lot of folks. You seem like the kind of person that wouldn't go looking at everyone's notes for fun and profit but that's not enough of a guarantee.

Are you planning to add encryption at some point? You'd get at least 1 more user if you do! ;)

Misleading, bad, injury prone... not sure where your confidence for these claims comes from, but glad you're so certain, I guess. I can't understand what's wrong about trying to find users in the largest corners of the internet either.

Darebee was good for me. I've said why it was. It is strange to me that you might consider my experience to be wrong? invalid? and that nobody else might find this resource useful?

When I was first starting any kind of fitness in my life, I went through several of the programs on darebee and read many of their guides. I found the content to be exactly right for me at the time. Digestible, detailed, 30 day plans for beginners. They also warm my heart with their hard stance on keeping the content free, having zero ads, and being accessible to anyone with internet access of any speed.

I hesitate to speak for them, but I don't think their mission is to provide content for people who already know what they want out of exercise, have been exercising for years, and understand what is and isn't good for their body. If you're experienced in fitness, the site likely isn't for you. And that's fine, isn't it?

Some folks have called out perhaps not understanding the funding issues with hosting a site so minimal. You're right, that part is cheap. It's the content creators, who are fitness professionals spending their time not working for money that need to be supported by the funding. They also do various outreach programs that of course require money to make happen.

From a hiring standpoint, the problem imo, is that employers set the timebox thinking that it means something when comparing candidates' solutions. I couldn't care less whether somebody spends two hours or two days on it. I want to see the best solution somebody can produce. I have engineers that can do things quickly and others that can do them more slowly, and both are infinitely more valuable to me than someone who can't provide a quality solution under any circumstance. In my experience, if you're filtering out the slower engineers that produce quality work you're going to be in for a very long hiring process and miss out on a ton of great engineers.

Plotting the first half of the season on the X with the second half on the Y seems very strange to me. If you were just trying to separate the win percentages of players, wouldn't an X axis for the win percentage with a count on the Y provide you with a proper distribution? Plotting win percentage in different time periods on the two axis serves to essentially double count hits within the distribution, provided people's win percentage did not change significantly across the season.

I also don't really understand how a large difference in win percentages means that something is significantly skill based. What's certainly true is that you cannot say with any confidence that a tighter distribution means something is less based on skill, which was the extremely bold claim in this article.

Why do we all think that a simple list can be made simpler? What is it about the normal layout that doesn't work?

I will let this man do my talking. https://www.maa.org/external_archive/devlin/LockhartsLament....