pmelendez

Sure, ensuring maintainability is one of the benefits of code reviews, but I think it is a bold claim to say that's the solo purpose. For example, code reviews is also a tool that allows teams to get inform of the changes in the code and share responsibility of the whole code base.

>I just don't see a world where every corporation is building their own accounts, crm, hr software.

I do see a world where every corporation would use agents-friendly platform to create their own accounts, crm, hr software. The insurance will come from the platforms vendor support.

AI? This article is about memory allocation strategies... Did I miss something?

I have had so much fun lately just with vanilla VS Code and Claude Code. Aider is a close second.

Not really. This is an example of something that Claude Code handles very easily and for Github Copilot, is not even an starter (because can't read SQLite files)

>Read the Sqlite file in this directory and create an UX that would visualize and manage the data. The application should be responsive (so it can be use on mobiles) and should have some graphs when appropiate.

Quoting OP's:

|> it inspired me to create this small game.

It was inspiration, not a simulation nor it claimed to be realistic. This is the type of artistic license that game designers have always had at their disposal.

> Again, I still feel like code is the ideal solution to "ad-hoc reproducible calculations"

I am a developer and I do my personal budgeting on a spreadsheet. It was easier to setup and maintain, and follows my process better than the personal finance software I have used before. Could I have made a little program for this? Sure, but it would be time consuming and I have better projects to spend my time on.

>The argument that this is 90% of what matters in ML seems a bit bold. AFAICT it is completely missing reinforcement learning,

Wouldn't that account for the other 10%? To me it sounds like the quote is not too far off when you consider that he said "of what matters today". There are many other things missing from that list that might become more relevant tomorrow.

> Ignore the critics. Watch the demos. Play with it

With so many smoke and mirrors demos out there, I am not super excited at those videos. I would play with it, but it seems like it is not available in a free tier (I stopped paying OpenAI a while ago after realizing that open models are more than enough for me)

I think the context of iOS is safely implied here. To say you have the option of going Android is as relevant as giving the option of doing a mobile app; Sure it is an option but out of the context of the discussion.

>do something serious

I guess it depends on what you mean by serious. Pre-training a competitive LLM with current methods and consumer hardware is prohibitive for sure. Solving a classification problem could be totally doable depending on the domain.

Fair, I think what makes this case interesting is that he wasn't an athletic outlier for most of his life, so the question on how many dormant athletes are out there remains. Maybe the distribution is not as skew as one might initially think

>Why can't you click & drag the words to reorder them? That level of difficulty is part of the game. There is a shuffle button to ease the ideas generation but most likely is was done like that by design.

I am definitely not the target audience for this. I am that person that keeps typing while people send voice notes, and now the only way to interact with this device is via voice? :(

There are a few things on this comments that is causing noise in my mind.

>might make you a better programmer, it won't make you a better software engineer

I think it is a short-sighted definition of SE but in any case, there are not any mention anywhere in the article claiming that this was aimed to software engineers.

Also, although I appreciate the concerns of "Not Invented Here" doctrine, we also have the other side of the spectrum, where we don't know how to do a left-pad anymore [1], and introduce dependencies everywhere.

The third point is that I don't think that having more knowledge on how things works contributes with the "Not Invented Here" mindset. I would argue is the opposite. When engineers are hungry on learning, they find excuses to make address that appetite at work, but once they know the tradeoffs and amount of effort to make it work, they will think twice before starting anything from scratch.

[1] https://qz.com/646467/how-one-programmer-broke-the-internet-...

>Honestly, what do you expect Spotify to do? Not try to stay competitive

That's a reductionist way of looking at it, but an alternative way would have been what Daniel said on that letter; They were "more productive and less efficient and they needed to be both".

From my ivory tower I do see some things that could have been done differently, such as adding only one new offering (maybe just podcasting), or rely more in contractors than employees and set the temporary expectation of the roles up front.

This! I recommend the book[1] as a slighty less addictive version.

[1] https://www.amazon.ca/Revolution-Valley-Paperback-Insanely-G...

I would be curious to see references that claims that dynamic and static typing are orthogonal with strongly typed systems, as “strongly type” is rather ambiguous and the only reason I used the term was because that was how Pascal was promoted back in the day (or at least how was taught to me)

From Wikipedia: In 1974, Liskov and S. Zilles defined a strongly-typed language as one in which "whenever an object is passed from a calling function to a called function, its type must be compatible with the type declared in the called function."

Note that the definition refers to type declaration, both being optional in Python and Common Lisp, so I wouldn’t use either as an example of strongly type languages.

> but Pascal’s type system was pretty solid

To be honest, this is a matter of styles, coming from a dynamic type background I don’t appreciate strongly typed systems as an advantage.

>This is getting pretty old.

Well the singular use of "They" is actually pretty old [1]. I don't think it is confusing readers as they did mention a name.

> I just can't help rolling my eyes at this nonsense.

I get the frustration if you are not used to the usage of the pronoun in its singular form, but it is actually sensible

[1] https://www.scu.edu/media/offices/provost/writing-center/res...

The tone of the website has a very tongue-in-cheek tone to me. Taking it seriously is like doing journalism research using The Onion.

Those are great, thanks for sharing. Also, great website!

Sounds like what startups do these days :)

There are several. If I remember correctly the story is featured in Woz’s book iWoz, but also in Job’s official biography. There is also a mention in the Wikipedia article of breakout: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakout_(video_game)

I am sure there are many more sources out there.

Slightly clarification to OC’s remarks. The original contract was for $700 (so Jobs didn’t lie there). However, what Jobs kept secret is that there was a substantial bonus for reducing the amount of chips needed. Wozniak was specially good at optimizing the amount of chips in a circuit so the end design used substantially fewer chips and hence the bonus was much bigger than the amount agreed before.

> You know what is fun when it comes to work? Things that work, are named appropriately, are understandable, and people not needing trivialities

I don’t know I agree with this. Microsoft has taken the descriptive naming style all the way down to products. Not only names like Batch or Functions don’t add much value, but also it makes searching information about them much harder than “cute” names (such as Excel).

I also think we tend to overthink this too much. In the end, the significance of names is as high as choosing between tabs or spaces.

I agree, and it is one of those things where buying the printed version makes so much sense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_in_the_Valley

>The benefits of 0 indexing are well known and mostly revolve around the fact you tend to have far less fiddling with -1 and +1 as you write code.

Depends on what you are doing. I seldom have to do a flat 2D array these days, but array[total-1] is an almost everyday thing.

>Confession: something about ORMs has never clicked with me.. none of them ever seem simpler than SQL.

You are not alone on that sentiment. The opaque nature of the translation often result in poor performance, and to me the apparent ergonomics gains are not worth the trouble either (at least in most cases).

> Until about... 5-6 years ago

That kinda correlates to when they moved away from the personals business

It depends what is understood as code quality. After a while, writing code that is not verbose, fairly maintainable, and readable, is a given. There is a minimum bar that each team set and it is gated by code reviews. The tradeoff start to happen after those minimums are reached.

I think quality in terms of correctness is always the target, and performance usually has a target SLA.