I think it's fair to call code LLM's similar to fairly bad but very fast juniors that don't get bored. That's a serious drawback but it does give you something to work with. What scares me is non-technical people just vibe coding because it's like a PM driving the same juniors with no one to give sanity checks.
Most growth is actually logistic. An S shaped curve that starts exponential but slows down rapidly as it reaches some asymptote. In fact basically everything we see as exponential in the real world is logistic.
Yeah, these things are all part of being a team of 1x engineers rather than a team of .5x engineers. If you have a single 10x (and I've worked with some) then it's not important but those guys have their own issues.
This clearly falls into "fraud waiting to happen" rather than "minimal risk" though. It's fairly simple to treat Amazon as the actual seller and just hold them liable if there is false advertising. There's a difference for a Shopify type system that gives individual sellers their own storefront or Ebay where the seller is clearly communicated, but Amazon often obscures the seller info and represents itself as the seller so it seems fair and reasonable.
Typically everyone does both freight and passengers, but it'll be better at one or the other. Passengers want fast trains with few delays that get close to population centers. Freight doesn't care about speed as much but cares about the overall throughput and wants to end up in distribution centers.
European trains don't really do that much freight though. They tend to be optimized to carry people. America is actually way ahead of Europe in terms of rail freight, something like 10x depending on the measurement.
One thing to keep in mind is that "expert on team's codebase" is a form of career growth. Not always the best or most prestigious kind but it's enough that the company finds you valuable and worth paying more.
It feels like half the usage of inheritance is also just workarounds for mocking things in unit tests or being able to access things that are private/protected. Everything ends up with an interface and an impl just because of silly language decisions.
The argument I've heard for T-shirt sizes is that if you go to numbers people try to add them together when that's just not how it works. I do agree that T-shirt sizes don't work that well though.
The issue is that the current direction that big data is going doesn't do much to help planned economies like that. The big issue is really calculating preferences, which a market economy does through prices. If you don't have prices set by markets it's extremely difficult to calculate preferences from first principles.
Sure, but there's another part of it where applying statistical averages to individuals promotes helplessness. Expecting people to suck it up and achieve despite adversity is not realistic at a population level and you should not promote that as a solution there, but individuals can and do achieve despite adversity. Telling people that they are real humans that can make decisions and do things is healthy and you don't want to take that away. It's a line you need to walk but only going with the population level approach has a lot of downsides.
Yep. Last time I interviewed I did one interview at a random place I didn't care about just to get rid of jitters, one at a mid-tier place I'd actually accept if I didn't get another offer and then two at FANG companies. I easily passed all of them except one of the FANGs and then I was off the market. The time before that I did a single interview. The time before that though I wasn't as experience and probably interviewed at 20-30 places before I got a job.
Social services are not socialism. Socialism is about the workers owning the means of production. Social services are something that goes back to basically the dawn of human society (Roman bread and circuses are a classic example).
TDD is more of a Java thing and it has a lot to do with the lack of a good type system in Java. TDD essentially lets you create a class that encapsulates a type and then enforce the contract for that type through the tests. Modern type systems tend to just let you do it directly so the unit tests are a little less useful.
It really isn't. Most of the code is probably going to be uninteresting and you can do 10 lines a minute or more. Some of the code will be more relevant and might take a day for 10 lines. This would just be checking for accuracy though so you could probably just ignore a huge chunk of it.
In something like typescript you could represent this as a union type. If I'm expecting a location I could take a string ("Baghdad"), lat long pairs, an enum, etc. With a union type I can specify that it could be any of these but they fill the same purpose. In Java I'd either do method overloading or expect to receive an object that implements a method that would give the location in a common format. The wrong way to do it would be to have a function that has both a lat/long input and a string input and just say that they're nullable and we only expect to get one of them.
Most of what you're talking about isn't that important. People don't pay you to be smart, they pay you to build things that will make them money. Interview culture is only tangentially related to this so it can be a bit weird but the #1 thing to be thinking about is "how can I make people money" and if you can talk about that you can usually get work with a smaller or less prestigious company.
Restrictions are usually on specific modes (ie. no violence, obscenity, etc) rather than the content of the speech. Most of the current attempts to restrict speech focus on contents.
The issue is that "DRY" isn't actually about coupling at all, it's about creating unambiguous ways to do things. If you have a single http library that's DRY, but if you've got a function that encapsulates several tangentially related bits of code that's not DRY. The acronym just doesn't say what it means.
Yeah, I'll probably be switching to a Surface Book. I don't mind spending for a premium laptop but I care about it feeling good to use and I just don't like the newer Macbooks.
The rifling has generally gotten more extreme. IIRC Stoner wanted 1:14 and the army went to 1:12, but the modern rifles are moving to a 1:7 twist rate. The ammo is different, it's heavier and does better at low velocity so the twist rate doesn't matter much for lethality.
Sure, but that's just a logic error. If you switch it around so we know that Bob is a murderer, then we can say that he's probably a man (and that's actually right).
This is misquoted quite a bit. Here's the actual quote.
"Except for the field organizers of strikes, who were pretty tough monkeys and devoted, most of the so-called Communists I met were middle-class, middle-aged people playing a game of dreams. I remember a woman in easy circumstances saying to another even more affluent: 'After the revolution even we will have more, won't we, dear?' Then there was another lover of proletarians who used to raise hell with Sunday picknickers on her property.
"I guess the trouble was that we didn't have any self-admitted proletarians. Everyone was a temporarily embarrassed capitalist. Maybe the Communists so closely questioned by the investigation committees were a danger to America, but the ones I knew—at least they claimed to be Communists—couldn't have disrupted a Sunday-school picnic. Besides they were too busy fighting among themselves."