munchbunny

But to pull something from the post:

> If this is the right mental model, you should expect to see:

> An unusual amount of in-house harness building on both the build side and the sell side

Yup.

> Org structures and individual roles being reshaped around their place in the business harness

Not yet, this is the one I am most skeptical about because it's still way too easy for the harness-driven processes I've seen to go off the rails, so it's still very much human SME-driven. However, the number of butts in seats required is going down.

> AI-native startups beating incumbents in domains where the “moat” can be easily harness-ified

In most cases I've seen the "moat" is not easily harness-ified, and increasingly the money and energy seems to be going into getting to the starting line.

> All software a software company uses (on or tied to the core build or sell paths) needing to be headless so the outer harness can run it

Tech companies are definitely doing it, but I don't think this is actually realistic yet for companies whose core competence isn't software. But this feels like a matter of when, not if.

It's also more fun on a server with friends, where it can be more about hanging out and doing something together, rather than a solo creative exercise.

From my experiences using AI to write documentation, if your bar is high quality documentation, yes, you do save time, but it's on the order of a 1.5-2x efficiency boost, not 10x. The AI basically saves me one draft iteration and saves me the trouble of creating charts by hand, and that's substantial, but I still need to take a fine toothed comb to the output.

The biggest issue I run into is that AI is good at the tone to address an intended audience but is not good at framing and structuring the information for said audience.

My experience with AI-written documentation is that, as a category, it contains just enough technical errors that more often than not I end up spending time running down confidently stated errors the old fashioned way: cross-referencing API documentation, reading code, etc. At that point you inevitably end up trying to get in touch with a human from the other team.

In other words, it's not because I don't know it's there, or I don't want to read it, it's because my priors tell me it's going to waste my time. What I end up doing is searching, finding the docs, and reading until I start to get the feeling of hallucinated factual errors.

I'm sure there's AI-written documentation in there where the authors really did a good job reviewing it, and I just didn't notice. But I've also had engineers under me lose weeks of productivity at this point because of documentation confidently presented, insufficiently vetted, that turned out to be wrong.

But the canonical way to do it that is both free and infinitely customizable is to host your own server. It’s pretty straightforward to do these days. However, before you do, I would suggest playing the game a bit to understand what the settings are/mean. You and your kids could play together a bit on a Realms server or a community/public server to get a feel for what you want in a custom server.

I'm not sure I would go that far, but I would definitely say that I remember many, many moments where a Python codebase hit critical mass and the amount of time I spent documenting and checking types exploded. It wasn't really about static, explicit typing, so much as "once my tools (IDE) are taken into account, how much time am I spending trying to reason about correctness?" Reasoning about types was the main contributor to that with Python before type annotations.

I prefer to interpret it charitably: the line between influence and manipulation can be pretty fuzzy, and some people come to a conclusion of, basically, "don't do it at all because it's always selfish."

I think it's a flawed view because it's impossible to go through life not influencing anyone and not wanting anything from anyone, so you may as well try to do it in a way that is generally win-win or at least not win-lose.

It's two sides of the same coin. Many techniques in that book are things that both genuinely kind people and manipulators do, the difference is intent. In that sense the idea of the book is a bit of a Rorschach test, although the way the author goes about it makes it pretty clear it wasn't meant to teach manipulation.

When I read the book over a decade ago, it did not feel like a red pilled book, it felt like a guide for well-intentioned people to learn how to express that more effectively. On the spectrum between "people orientation" and "task orientation", I was a task oriented person learning how to navigate personal and professional relationships more like a well-adjusted person would, and I suspect I and everyone around me was happier for it.

Every baby is different so most of the advice you find won’t work, but if you try enough things you’ll eventually find something that works consistently. Or you might just luck out and get a good sleeper.

For sure, probably because stinky diapers are visceral but psychological challenges aren’t, yet I think most parents would agree about having to dig far deeper into our inner resolve to deal with age-appropriate behavioral issues.

If you think about the people in your team who command the respect and trust to be able to get past all of that wariness of team outsiders, it's usually a really small number of people, and usually they are veterans who've been around for long enough to have built those relationships.

At least today the coding agents will cheat, choose the wrong pattern, brute force a solution where an abstraction or extra system was needed, etc. A few PR's won't make this a problem, but after not very long at all in a repo that a dev team is constantly contributing to (via their herds of agents) it can get pretty gnarly, and suddenly it looks like the agents are struggling with tech debt.

Maybe one day we can stop writing programming languages. It's a thought-provoking idea, but in practice I don't think we're there yet.

I think a lot of people miss this point.

Real projects are complex and have tons of context at the historic layer, political layer, and technical layer. If I have one hour to do the interview, I need to get to some shared context with the candidate quickly, or else it'll just be an hour of me whining about my job. And I usually don't need someone who is already a senior subject matter expert, so I'm not going to ask the type of question that is so far down the rabbit hole that we're in "wheels haven't been invented yet" territory.

Fundamentally, that's why I'm asking a somewhat generic design question. I do also dig into how they navigated those layers in their past experience, but if I don't see them in action in some way then that's just missing signal I can't hire on, and that helps neither me nor the candidate.

In another company or timeline perhaps I could run a different interview style, but often you're working within the constraints of both what the candidate is willing to do and what the company standardized on (which is my current situation).

TL;DR: not enough training.

As a hiring manager, whenever we start a hiring period I have a conversation with my interviewer team about what qualities we're looking for and review the questions they plan to ask in order to normalize the process. Stuff like "what does a good answer look like, and why? what does a bad answer look like? is this something easy for a candidate to engage with or will you spend half the interview just explaining the background? is this coding question unreasonably hard?" and so on.

I also look at the evaluations that interviewers give relative to other interviewers. Almost every hiring cycle I've done I've had to deal with some interviewer (all over the seniority spectrum) asking unreasonably hard questions.

Sometimes you just have a bad interviewer who is looking for something specific from you but isn't telling you. If you're experienced in these interviews, you catch the signs and adapt by asking questions to suss out which direction the interviewer wants to take it.

Sometimes your answer is plausible but the interviewer wants to see you justify it. Sometimes your answer is wrong but the interviewer wants to see if you can reason your way through it, and maybe come up with an alternative.

If you're junior/inexperienced, it's often hard to tell and it'll feel arbitrary/unfair, and unfortunately that's just how it goes. As a more senior/experienced candidate, you can often figure out which situation you're in by asking questions to feel out the interviewer and then try to pivot during the interview, though it still takes valuable minutes out of the interview that you could have otherwise spent showing your competence.

The general way to handle this as an interviewer is really simple: acknowledge that the interviewee gave a good answer, but ask that for the purposes of evaluating their technical design skills that you'd like for them to design a new system/code a new implementation to solve this problem.

If the candidate isn't willing to suspend disbelief for the exercise, then you can consider that alongside all of the other signals your interviewer team gets about the candidate. I generally take it as a negative signal, not because I need conformance, but because I need someone who can work through honest technical disagreements.

As a candidate, what's worked for me before was to ask the interviewer if they'd prefer that I pretend ____ doesn't exist and come up with a new design, but it makes me question whether I want to join that team. IMO it's the systems design equivalent of the interviewer arguing with you about your valid algorithm because it's not the one the interviewer expects.

As a former PM (now an engineer), I think that's pretty much it. Teams and companies will vary a lot in terms of what they want the PM's to do, with some common patterns emerging, but as long as the PM's do the work well then the team is much better off. The key issue is how much you can trust the PM to hold up their end of the project.

A common theme I've noticed among good PM's: good judgement. When the team can trust the PM's judgement, the whole team flows better. When the team can't trust the PM's judgement, the PM is worth negative bandwidth.

The key issue right now is that the models falter in the last mile, and the last mile is where you need the training and experience to make sure the thing that lands is production quality.

At some point in the next few years I believe the roles will merge. I suspect that PMs will be forced to specialize towards a discipline (design, data science, engineering, etc.) while engineers will also start to see more of their responsibilities covering former PM territory. Most engineers will probably become closer to “product engineers”.

In my mid-30s, I'm definitely slower to pick up new things than in my college days, but I have much more mental discipline and patience, a broader base of knowledge to draw from, and maybe the biggest differentiator: a much more developed sense of priority and focus in order to get more benefit out of less time.

"Readiness" means that I believe that after their promotion they will be able to execute at the higher level at least most of the time. That doesn't necessarily mean they need to be already doing the higher leveled job, but in practice they do need to show that they can sustain some approximation of it.

If there was a way to combine this with coaching sessions, I think this could be a very effective way to train IC's that are stepping into leadership roles (managers, staff/principal IC's, PM's, etc.). It could also be interesting to have a variant of the exercise where you ask the student/user to write their own message.

ConcernedApe's next game is also built on MonoGame, so he has self-interested reasons to want MonoGame to continue to be maintained. But just because ConcernedApe has self-interested reasons to donate doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't also come from a charitable place.

MonoGame is basically getting a sponsor. The ecosystem benefits. I'm personally happy to leave it there rather than asking for moral purity.

In my experience, it's not that directories are inherently important, it's that an organization mechanism is, in the service of a few key problems:

1. Privacy and data handling requirements

2. Versioning

3. Partitioning

4. Probably some others I'm forgetting

Hierarchical storage is a useful all-purpose tool for these things.

I'm not so sure they actually believe the results are authoritative, I think they're being lazy and hoping you will believe it.