It doesn't feel sustainable now. It won't feel sustainable in the future when companies are trying to operate on an entire fossil layer of LLM-generated legacy code.

Do I expect managers to get smarter about LLMs and their limits or do I "retire" and find an entire new industry to work in?

It's really depressing and there has been a lot of grieving since April that it feels like my entire 20+ year career path disappeared overnight, replaced by something unsustainable and ultimately terrifying.

It's a weird world to see that sort of rich patronage model returning. It also doesn't seem sustainable for that many games we want to play to come from just random multi-millionaires and billionaires desiring that videogames are their favorite "philanthropy".

- `git rebase -i`

- Change the TODO list to `edit` the chosen commit (everything else to `pick`)

- At the `edit` point:

  - (simplified) `git add -p`

  - `git commit`

  - `git add -u`

  - `git commit`

That "simplified" `git add -p` in the middle and that assumption that everything else not selected is the "other patch" is fine for quick splits, but there's still power user super powers in knowing the full rebase workflow and `git add -p`.

As I recall, in GHE I remember finding that you could even turn off the repo's wiki at that point and then reset it to point to your docs/wiki/ folder and still have the Wiki interface but pointing it to a branch in the same repository. That was a while ago and I don't know if it is still supported in GHE. I also remember it was work managing that wiki branch because Wikis didn't directly support PR workflows if you have branch protection policies. Also from the documentation it doesn't look like it is supported in Public GitHub right now, which seems a shame to me, as someone who likes all documentation in the same repo as the source. I haven't needed Wikis in public GitHub much, so I haven't tried to do anything like point them to a main repo branch.

I still think it's an interesting question if Infocom had not tried to keep the Z-Machine proprietary "secret sauce" if it would have been a larger platform of general computing for much longer and broader than Infocom's own lifespan and primarily games focus. If Infocom had taken a Sun-like stance on the Z-Machine being a JVM ahead of its time and building a broader compatibility ecosystem "write once, run everywhere" might have been an earlier part of computing.

Mac OS was said to skip 9 on the way to 10 due to a combo of some Asian numerology (just as Western numerology often encourages skipping "unlucky" 13) and also trying to make a clean break more obvious between System 8 and OSX. (The X being the 10, as Apple's favorite way to write 10 for various reasons. Which is why "OSX" was always a misnomer, accidentally burning the version number into the operating system name. Part of why Apple has been trying to get everyone on the "macOS" brand lately to pull the version number back out.)

My push into Common Lisp was a current revision of a classic AI textbook that mixed up usage of nearly the complete history of lisp because some of the examples presumably dated to the 1960s/1970s with moderate adjustments to make sure that they still compiled in SBCL or the like, so it was a natural lesson from that textbook. Maybe not the best way to learn Common Lisp, but that was an interesting semester for me. (I and the few other people in the class that semester decided to learn Lisp by choice for the class and I think I was the only one to also decide "I'll do every assignment with implementation language choice in Common Lisp this semester", which was most of my classes, just to keep grad school interesting.)

But most "triple A" games don't just release under Steam's weaker terms, they also want Xbox and PlayStation certification, which have been strongly enforced.

The visual interpretation/intuition of Big O notation can be a useful way to build a visual intuition of what a function's derivative and integral "shapes" may look like, so some Calculus books teach Big O notation, too.

I think the real pain though is that AI also often removes the feedback loop between "good" engineers and "bad" engineers. A lot of "good" engineers started as "bad" engineers that learned, sometimes the hard way and sometimes with patient mentorship, how to be better engineers. Patient mentorship becomes harder as code reviews become less personal. "The Hard Way" becomes harder when the consequences get divorced from actions. For a bad engineer it becomes "Claude broke Production" more often than "I broke Production" and learning mostly ceases.

We're starting to recognize how many junior developers AI is replacing, making the pipeline to senior developers harder (if not disappearing), but we also maybe aren't focusing enough on how much we are also losing the pipeline from "bad" to "good" engineers.

Similarly PC games with mod support often have to disable Achievement systems as soon as any mod is installed just in case the mod happens to offer cheats. Which also seems to have impacted mod culture to some extent with entire classes of gamers not installing mods ever to make sure that they still win Achievements.

It's an interesting social dynamic and I think one of the clearest lines in the sand for when cheat codes disappeared, especially in genres like the FPS where "God Mode" and "noclip" codes were genre staples until Achievements. (Because DOOM offered them, every FPS offered them. Until they stopped.)