jleask

So as long as I get an AI agent to do it for me, I can now break the law with impunity?

Currently living in the UK where average principal salaries are less than entry level. Even better working for a US corp and having to deal with the complete lack of understand about why we aren't nearly as motivated as our US counterparts

I've stuck with Android despite privacy concerns because of the control I have over the device. If they're going to do this I might as well go Apple.

The problem is that hidden among that complexity/detail is often the value that software developers bring e.g. security issues, regulatory compliance, diagnosability/monitoring, privacy, scalability, resilience etc.

There will be bugs that the AI cannot fix, especially in the short term, which will mean that code needs to be readable and understandable by a human. Without human review that will likely not be the case.

I'm also intrigued by "see if it works". How is this being evaluated? Are you writing a test suite, manually testing?

Don't get me wrong, this approach will likely work in lower risk software, but I think you'd be brave to go no human review in any non-trivial domain.

The underlying tech choice only matters at the moment because as software developers we are used to that choice being important. We see it as important because we currently are the ones that have to use it.

As more and more software is generated and the prompt becomes how we define software rather than code i.e. we shift up an abstraction level, how it is implemented will become less and less interesting to people. In the same way that product owners now do not care about technology, they just want a working solution that meets their requirements. Similarly I don't care how the assembly language produced by a compiler looks most of the time.

"people are just more productive" is not the case for everyone. That relies on a lot of variables; type of work being done, as you mention the office environment, whether the people you're working with are in that office etc. My home office is far superior to any environment I've ever been given by an employer. I have multiple large screens, control over the heating, a door I can close and most importantly a cat to stroke whilst thinking.

Anecdotally I find extroverts prefer the office and introverts prefer home. I find that seamless access to people can be really distracting especially when I'm doing focus work.

I think you're correct if people are given a good work environment, are in on the same days and are all in the same office this makes sense. The reality is that in many large organizations this isn't the case.

It could possibly be achieved here if our prices weren't so arcane and difficult to understand. There's tickets you can't get from the machines etc. There was a photo yesterday of a queue of 10 odd people waiting next to 4 idle ticket machines. It's solvable but nobody seems interested in actually doing it, presumably because it costs money to fix. International Airlines I assume gained some competitive edge by that move, there is no competition in a lot of our privatized industries so no real incentive to do anything but the bare minimum.

Cutting corners and costs e.g. shutting ticket offices, doing just enough to barely offer the service. It's not like your passengers have any sensible alternative. If that doesn't do it then you can also load the company up with debt and pay yourself a nice dividend until rates rise.

I notice this too. Introverts or those that do lots of work that requires focus prefer WFH and extroverts prefer to be in the office.

I understand what you were saying in your original comment having seen this now. Completely agree the level of selfish short term-ism is a joke.

I am. My children are the only things keeping me here. It's not about the money it's about quality of life. Healthcare is rapidly becoming non-existent, schools operate off the back of teachers, roads are falling apart, the level of corruption is embarrassing, housing market is ridiculous, childcare is expensive and/or non-existent etc. In general any service provided by the state is deteriorating.

Gold does have utility beyond being shiny and for now has actual scarcity. Fiat currencies have utility in that I can pay my taxes in the local one, my government pays for things using it, it is pretty much universally accepted etc. I see a future for electronic currencies just not necessarily the crypto technologies we see today.

The "much less likely to get confiscated" is potentially a negative too e.g. confiscation of the profits of crime benefits society. Whether it is more positive or more negative depends upon home much you trust your government to be benevolent.

1 possibly we'll see, but 2-4 with less people and no obvious plan to get there I really I don't see it.

As someone that just cancelled their subscription for me it was cost and to cut down the number of streaming services I have. Netflix didn't stand up well next to the others for cost and quantity of must watch content.

48% of us realized this

Just as anecdotally, I know many people who have put that work and it has made no difference, or they've been made redundant etc. Equally I know drifters who happened to be in the right place at the right time.

Hard work buys you more tickets in the game of life, but luck is always there to some degree. How much is luck, who knows :)

I'm a Chartered Engineer in the UK and no employer has ever cared. Perhaps they might if I worked in a safety critical arena such as aviation but certainly not in suit and tie business software land.

The problem is that although people moan about rubbishy software it very rarely physically hurts anybody and can be fixed in future releases. This means people are unwilling to pay the extra cost of software being more mature and 'engineered' on delivery. There's a lot of software that would be not be economically viable if it was to be held to a higher standard. If a bridge failing could be guaranteed not to hurt nobody and could be put right in a day or so but be like 1/10th of the cost structural engineers would be held to a lesser standard to.

That said, the financial cost of poor security that comes from a lower accepted quality may change what is acceptable over time for internet facing software. Even that is seemingly a long way off, look at the actual consequences for recent privacy and security breaches.

That the meaning of "Leave" was left so vague was with hindsight reckless. It allowed the leave campaign to bring together all the various differing factions as they could all believe it meant what they wanted it to mean. I can only assume the government was so confident it would win that it went for an option that gave the best soundbite and best opportunity to shut up the euro skeptics in the Conservative party.

I'd question the non-trivial part. True in some cases but also I can think of plenty of Cxx level people that have just walked off into the sunset of a new role after crashing and burning a company.

Additionally the compensation is so great that I think a lot of people would gladly take that risk given the opportunity. If in a few months you can earn a x years engineer's salary why not take the risk and then worst case is a nice holiday whilst looking for the next company to ruin.

I think your point holds better at middle management level.

That's something I've had on my todo list for ages. As others have said though, it'd be great to be able type text as drawing letters with a mouse always takes ages and looks rubbish.

SVG export would be nice too, perhaps a paid for extra :)