Before Grubhub, did you feel that way about pizza delivery?

> are in fact damaged by people buying everything online

You enjoyed ordering from mail order catalogs?

Reality check: Before online shopping became a thing, the vast majority of towns in the US did not have a store that had everything you wanted to buy. You had to find a potential dealer in town, get them to order it for you, and pay a premium for that service.

I lived for a number of years in a town that had no FedEx or UPS office. So if you missed a delivery that required a signature, you'd have to drive to the town that did - a 45 minute drive (and in winter, a risky drive if there was snow).

I didn't have a car, so I had to make sure I'm there for 3-4 hours or longer awaiting delivery. If I missed it (I never did), it simply meant the product would get returned, and I'd pay the vendor some kind of fee (restocking, shipping, whatever). It's only the convenience of the Internet that solved some of these problems.

Are there downsides to everything you mentioned? Sure. There are upsides to all of them as well. You're taking a multifaceted concept and reducing it down, not even to a continuum, but to a binary.

Many, many people outsource things like meal prep.

When I build a PC, I pay a little extra because I want it to last a long time. I aim for 5 years, and in reality it usually ends up 7 years (life happens, need the money, etc).

I am now in year 8 of my current PC. I only had money to replace it this year, and am now stuck with it due to the RAM prices. It's going to really suck for me if my RAM fails in the next few years.

I left. I will always recommend finding a new job when you have dishonest management. (Dishonest by not admitting they are lowering the quality.)

Fortunately, none of my jobs since that job had that problem. They either allow good quality reviews, or they explicitly accept the technical debt that comes out of it and don't blame me for poor codebases.

(But then again, I make sure to probe these things during the interview process...)

That's because he rarely cooked, and ate out often. When you get married, cook almost every day, and have kids, washing dishes by hand becomes anything but therapeutic.

Do you have a kid? How often are you cooking for the kid? Doing it multiple times a week for 15+ years becomes a chore. Most of the meals you cook aren't well thought out - they're "Family needs to be fed - what's the quickest thing I can make?" Then, once in a while, you want to put in the effort and cook something nice, and it becomes meaningful. Those have always been the exceptions when both parents have full time jobs.

Getting an algorithm to plan the recipe and order ingredients is for all the other times you cook. Not for the meaningful ones.

It's also not an either/or. You have the freedom to do it as often or as little as you want.

Now here's my question: Say only 10% of the meals you cook are carefully thought out. 90% are done with your brain on autopilot. Are you going to criticize someone for now doing a 10-30-60 split, where the 30% is using some algorithm to actually make something nice for the kid? You're not losing any of the meaningful time you had before.

Another way to frame this: Overworked parents decide to take the family out for junk food once in a while. It's a treat for the kids, and it's a way for the parents to get relief. It's simply another way of outsourcing the labor, just as the AI example is. Do you criticize such parents saying that instead of meaningfully trying to make a nice dinner, they're offloading it to a 3rd party?

One of SO's selling points was that outdated answers get replaced with the more modern, better ones - and it worked for many, many years.

(This is exactly how jj does it.)

If you like this kind of convenient CLI command, I would seriously recommend giving jj a try. To give you an idea, I never bothered splitting a commit in my git days. I do it almost daily with jj. Lots of other niceties that I didn't bother with in git, but routinely do in jj.

jj has fewer commands than git, yet does everything git does.

Do you not have team meetings with the manager? Examine some of the PRs your coworkers reviewed, find the flaws, bring it up to the whole team, and get buy-in from the manager that he's OK with it. If he is, stop worrying and let the PRs through.

Also, start writing those CYA emails.

Then remove the whole process and let it go through automatically. I've worked in high trust teams where we would do that - there was no gate.

Please reread my comments. That's not the scenario I was discussing.

> Amazon can - and does - do whatever it wants with no consequences.

20+ years ago the exact same accusations were leveled against Walmart.

I still don't see the difference.

> If the algo has a bad day your trader account can be terminated. You'll have to battle through layers of time wasting bots to get anywhere near a human who can do something about it.

Amazon is giving many people a platform they had no other hope of having. Years ago, for a while, I got deep into Amazon selling. An average Joe who is a full time employee can quickly set up a business, get some manufacturing contracts in China, and start selling on Amazon.

In the old days, that Joe would never be allowed on Walmart's shelves.[1] So it's equally true with Walmart: That average Joe would not be able to get a human to help him, because the humans would exclude him to begin with. Amazon is giving the average Joe more opportunity than they ever had. We're merely criticizing them for not giving those kinds of sellers great service.

Even for those who could get into Walmart - they made capricious decisions all the time that would impact your sales. If you were a small seller, you had no power over Walmart.

> Amazon can decide to change your product pricing or offer special deals without asking you. You can opt out, but if you're in, you get no say in what happens.

If the goal of your comment is to list all the reasons Amazon sucks - there's no need. I could write that list for you - I try not to buy from Amazon myself. The submission is specifically about their ads, as was my comment.

[1] Arguably, that's a good thing, and Amazon's lack of curation is one of the reasons I don't shop at Amazon, but it is besides the point here.

I had no trouble parsing it, but then again, I'm used to people whining about how they're getting screwed because their employer made so $1M/employee but they're not getting paid $1M.

Otherwise - yeah, I was not impressed with the article. Ads are acting just like ads always have. There is nothing special he could point out about Amazon's ads.

As I said here and elsewhere: If management is concerned code review is a bottleneck, let management be aware that the process has to change. Either the human is not as thorough, or he uses some combination of his brain + LLM to conduct the review.

It's a basic fact: They have a machine that produces a lot of code, but don't have a machine to review that code. The bottleneck is obvious. I'd love to build planes for $1 too, but physics applies.

People replying with LLM responses is not really functionally different from lazily responding with a link. If the OP is astounded that LLM responses are tolerated, where was he all those years when people were lazily responding with links?

MW has it as slang. Cambridge has it as informal. OED I don't have access to.