moron4hire

Speaking of that "obviously impressive" line, I'm getting really tired of something like that line seemingly needing to be included by anyone doing any criticism of agentic systems. The most common form of it is "these models are obviously useful" midway through a bunch of arguments about environment, data provenance, skill atrophy, or even correctness issues.

It's just really weird. Why does everyone feel the need to equivocate? "I worry about genocide and the environmental impact of radiation from nuclear bombs. Obviously, they are very useful for annihilating entire cities, certainly. But are we really atrophying our ability to invade with infantry?"

I want to tell these people to just cut it out. It's demeaning to their own position.

I've patched many security vulnerabilities in projects without ever once needing to break into a competitor's network.

I'm not some Google/Microsoft/whatever engineer who's been working on highly scalable, highly available systems. I've mostly worked in consulting on small projects. I have never not had problems with the defaults on any of those sorts of libraries. I've almost always had to roll my own graph manipulation and heavily customize any serialization system I've used. And when I do so, because I've gotten good at doing it (in particular, I don't think of the graph stuff as being hard at all), it makes tons of other stuff inside around the project a lot easier.

I feel like people bend themselves out of shape trying to avoid these so-called "complex" or "esoteric" "only theoretical Computer Science" topics. You don't need a general purpose tree or graph manipulation library. Trying to make one ends up creating something far more complex than necessary and all you succeed in doing is making the calling code maybe two lines shorter but also not easily portable between projects, and also at a huge maintenance cost. It would be like trying to make your own, bespoke "Collection handling class" because you think trying to keep track of arrays and lists and dictionaries and sets and queues and stacks is too "complex, esoteric." No, you end up creating something complex and esoteric in the attempt to try to handle the erroneously identified "complexity."

In general, I don't think you can argue definitively on the uselessness of a piece of knowledge from a standpoint of ignorance of that knowledge.

What is "abstract CS" about binary trees and serialization?

The hype train the caught me was VR. I'm reminded of the Microsoft Hololens. It was an incredible feat of engineering. At the same time, it was--at times, literally--a painful experience.

There was a vision of the Hololens being a general purpose compute device that enabled something more like the power of a desktop without being tethered to a sitting position at a desk. You could see it if you squinted hard (incidentally, the device caused a lot of eye strain). But even at the height of the VR hype cycle, I didn't know anyone pushing the Hololens on anyone. Nobody was telling the world they were going to be using Hololenses v1 or v2 as their only computer "or get left behind."

It's blockchain for gaming all over again, putting the cart before the horse.

If it's open source, where is the source? I couldn't find a link to a repository. There is a link to GitHub on the Contact Us page, but it's just a link to github.com.

Nothing to do with the database itself. It's the tooling necessary to give the agentic harness access to the database that is the problem.

It's the underpants gnomes again.

  - Vibe code a bunch of small projects that we couldn't justify ROI before
  - ???
  - Profit

Those sort of ideas are unlikely to yield major benefit, though.

This is basically replicating the plight of the solo open source dev, writ large. Individual programmers have long built the thing they've cared about on their own time (essentially "for free" because, despite kindergarten economics theory, a programmer cannot usually monetize a marginal hour). And it usually goes that the project never gets adopted anywhere. It might acrue more features and total man-hour effort than most of what FAANG does in open source to drown out the solo devs. But the market will decide that "no organizational buy-in" is a signal the project doesn't matter. Other developers will decide, "if he could do it, so could I" and also not adopt.

Same exact thing is happening and will continue to happen with all these generated "but we wouldn't have done it otherwise" projects. It's just very, very unlikely to go anywhere.

That which took very little effort to create will receive very little effort to promote.

Back around 2015, I did an experiment where I spent most of my working day in VR (mostly spent iterating on some interaction space designs in TiltBrush). I had many of those feelings directly after. It actually felt uncomfortable to be around people. It felt like everyone was too close and were about to clip though me at any second.

> I actually had to backpedal on my gaming PC from Kubuntu recently, I'm sad to say. The support for the RTX 5080 is just too rough.

What? That has nothing to do with KDE. And Ubuntu is one of the happy paths for driver support. The problem is squarely on either NVidia or overly pretentious commitment to FOSS and only FOSS.

It's really not that bad. KDE is perfectly usable by default. More so than the only options you get on macOS or Windows. And, if you are so inclined, you can spend that extra effort to make it sing just to you. So, the hyperbole here is really not warranted.

It's interesting that an article extoling the virtues of the em-dash isn't using them correctly. They don't get spaces around them.

I've thought about the specific example of distorted menu photos before as well and to me it also signals intelligence level in the proprietor. I can't imagine myself in that position, looking at that and saying, "yup, that's good." And I also have a hard time imagining not understanding why it looks bad, what one could have done to not make it bad. It feels like a distinct decision to be lazy.

And like you said, if they are that careless and unadept at one thing, how are they going to work the intricacies of an espresso machine and food safety standards? Not that an espresso machine is that hard to operate, but surely it's more difficult than maintaining the aspect ratio of a photo. You don't even need to know the term "aspect ratio" to get it right.

But I also have to admit that my expectations seem to be very off on this specific issue. My wife is quite intelligent (actual, literal genius) and even quite artsy, and yet I had to teach her how to not resize photos incorrectly, both for aspect ratio and quality by resizing too large. It's seems like such an easy thing to see and figure out to me. This must be how my 10 year old sees my chess play.

Fake news. There's no such thing as good pizza in NYC :P

My wife and I just doesn't a weekend at a craft show (she has a hobby writing sci fi books and we go to street fests to sell them). There were at least TWO vendors selling "hand made" paintings that I could tell were AI generated pictures pasted onto a piece of wood and then had a few coats of clear coat slapped on thick to give it a paint brush effect. Also, their banners were AI generated. Disgustingly dishonest.

It's the corporatization of all aspects of life. It's so bad of a problem that many people voluntarily adopt the style of neutered corporate branding in even their own things. Listen to how people talk: we used to laugh and call people names when they used the word "synergy" in a personal setting and now it's used unironically.

Humans are social creatures. We crave a personal touch in things. That's why we idealize the small shop. But we're also risk averse. It's easier to eat at a big chain restaurant than to take a chance at a local place.

Just look at the country music industry. It's practically an assembly line for "small town nostalgia" slop. And yet small towns are the worst for defecting to Walmart or Dollar General.

I've been at my current company for just over three years. I manage a small team of developers at a medium-sized consultancy, building internal tooling for our data analysts.

One of my junior developers started the same day I did; we went through on boarding together. He's in his mid 20s, this is his second job post-college, after having an abysmal experience entering the workforce during COVID. He's had some struggles with learning to code but has taken my advice to build side projects for things he is interested in and has really started to take off. He got married last year and just last week bought a house.

One of my developers was a brand new junior, having started her first job post-college just a few months before I started at the company. When I first met her, she apologized to me. She hadn't done anything, she was just that kind of mousy person whose obviously been ground down by everyone around her for her entire life. I started making her deliver our project status updates. I also give her full projects that she works on her own with no input from me, other than whatever advice she herself asks of me. She finished her master's degree in computer science last year and also recently bought a house.

One of my more recent developers came to us from after 10 years of working on-site on military bases. She'd been stuck in a corner, made to maintain large legacy projects on her own, over looked for promotion her entire career. She's one of the best project managers I've ever seen. I have her deliver all of our presentations to the C-suite (and there are a lot of them). She just got engaged and I recently got her promoted for the first time in her career.

One of my former developers came to me from a different part of the company. He came to the company after being a medic on active duty in Afghanistan. His former team couldn't figure out what to do with him and when the contract on which he was working expired, they didn't bother to find a new one for him. He had told his supervisor he wanted to be a programmer, not an analyst, and somehow his supervisor knew I was looking for people. He was an absolutely terrible programmer. I spent multiple sessions a week working on mentoring him. Ultimately, I suggested he find another company and helped him find one that I thought would fit him better, something smaller, not in consulting, that could have more time to work directly with him, and kept him busy with documentation tasks until he could transition with no down time. He still sends me updates on LinkedIn. He also bought a house and is getting married soon. He loves his new job, misses our team, but says he's learning a lot more now.

Our company is one of the worst places to work as a software developer I've ever seen. Not quite the worst in that nobody is yelling at us or threatening us with violence, but our management has absolutely zero understanding of the business of software development. It's incompetent-bad, not evil-bad. The actual projects are ludicrously bad with no direction. My boss listens to me in our one-on-ones with bewildered eyes as I describe the cacophony of dumb ideas from our C-suite stakeholders, folks he has no involvement with because my team is matrixed out to internal work. He mostly just lets me do whatever I want as long as the timesheets get signed on time. I love working here. I also recently bought a house, my first one in my life. Oh yeah, we live in Northern Virginia, BTW, houses ain't cheap here. But I love working here despite all the product idiocy because I don't see my job as building software, I see it as building software developers.

Fuck calling a computer program a "teammate." A computer program is not going to have a brilliant and beautiful life. We only do any of this shit because it's in the service of people.

Another point of context: at the time, several popular games had used a very exaggerated and/or poorly implemented ambient occlusion feature. I personally would frequently turn it off entirely because it was generally expensive (even if not as expensive as full global illumination) and looked bad.

Holy crap! How do they stop at that speed with those thin bicycle tires?

There's always an executive asking for another dashboard.

Because then OpenAI can read your emails and project communications and eventually build a model they will sell as an automated consultant. The CEOs will uncritically eat it up just long enough to cut the footing out from the industry. Once everyone is used to the sorry state of software, nobody will be able to imagine putting people to the task anymore and we'll have the new world order that Altman and Theil have been talking about creating.

I did this once, 20 years ago, with an animated GIF to add a live streaming air quality layer to a map application at work. The image itself was rendered using Java2D. I had a version I was working on that used JOGL to make gradient blobs instead of point clouds, but I couldn't get the server admin to install the OpenGL driver to get it to work.

This is offshoring all over again.

Nice. I'll go check it out. Thanks.

Apparently "being transformed" has "been transformed" because most things look a hell of a lot like the same thing these days.

I can't stand this "if it provides value, that's all that matters" attitude. We could also try to avoid being useful idiots for a small handful of investor-darling corporations that have explicitly stated they seek to monopolize the market and put us all out of business/jobs.

Comic Chat inspired me to make multiplayer games with IRC as the lobby server. But I specifically did not do what Microsoft did and send the metadata through the public channel, because I too had gone through the public ridicule of using Comic Chat. Instead, I used DMs between users to perform the signaling (which would then open a socket to create a direct TCP connection between the players).

It was pretty easy to do. Had to have been, because I was a pretty terrible programmer at the time.

No, the increment is necessary to keep the counter going. The choice of pre-increment versus post-increment handles the "start at 1" issue you mentioned, but it isn't auto incrementing.