I also take months to learn new names, but I can tell you that my second interview ever was for a company which did low level SCADA work. Even though I never took that job or worked in any such related field I can still tell you what it stands for.

In general we don't open up easily to strangers and hate personal questions. We consider many social questions to be just fluff and will either brush them off or pick something with far too much personal information.

These issues especially surface when being interviewed by a non-IT worker.

After that re-trained myself a few times out of interest to do it the other way around, and one goes through the four odd phases of having to focus on it vs it just happening correctly without thinking about it.

From what I remember it could take 2-4 weeks before you would just do it both without thinking and correctly.

Usually their vision becomes blurry, but the tiny characters remain in perfect focus.

Overall it saves me a lot of time reading when it's just focusing on the details.

Then there are others such as vfx that can have their own tiers, you might have something in the background that is difficult to pause, stop and/or resume.

Then there are other things such as timers etc. that will need special handling, graphics card interactions etc. When done with those you also need to be able to resume and ensure that all of the previous will continue as if nothing have ever happened.

In the same vein some other "simple" things like saving/loading the game is often anything but.

I'd have maybe used different colored dots, e.g. N blue, then remove them and place 1 green etc. as a counter and so on.

I type text at a rather slow rate due to poor training and never having really tried to improve, but when it comes to code I can output code sequences so much faster.

My father owned a copy of it which I still have to this day. It had a lot of different formulas than the ones we were taught in school, and I liked the range of topics that it covered.

Revenue wise they might be down from the 6bn in 2025 to somewhere in the mid 5's, so might as well get rid of 1000 employees while handing out bigger bonuses to senior staff.

We all have our own rules that we've built up over our lifetime and some of us have definitely spent more time watching people and/or are just better at the subtle clues.

But having said that, there are often people that just break all the conventional rules or just doesn't trigger any of the things that you are looking for. Like most things you can probably draw a bell curve where we can easily spot the people in the middle, but then it becomes geometrically more difficult as you move to the sides.

If it is writing both the code and the tests then you're going to find that its tests are remarkable, they just work. At least until you deploy to a live state and start testing for yourself, then you'll notice that its mostly only testing the exact code that it wrote, its not confrontational or trying to find errors and it already assumes that its going to work. It won't ever come up with the majority of breaking cases that a developer will by itself, you will need to guide it. Also while fixing those the odds of introducing other breaking changes are decent, and after enough prompts you are going to lose coherency no matter what you do.

It definitely makes a lot of boilerplate code easier, but what you don't notice is that its just moving the difficult to find problems into hidden new areas. That fancy code that it wrote maybe doesn't take any building blocks, lower levels such as database optimization etc. into account. Even for a simple application a half-decent developer can create something that will run quite a bit faster. If you start bringing these problems to it then it might be able to optimize them, but the amount of time that's going to take is non-negligible.

It takes developers time to sit on code, learn it along with the problem space and how to tie them together effectively. If you take that away there is no learning, you're just the monkey copy-pasting the produced output from the black box and hoping that you get a result that works. Even worse is that every step you take doesn't bring you any closer to the solution, its pretty much random.

So what is it good for? It can both read, "understand", translate, write and explain things to a sufficient degree much faster than us humans. But if you are (at the moment) trusting it at anything past the method level for code then you're just shooting yourself in the foot, you're just not feeling the pain until later. In a day you can have it generate for example a whole website, backend, db etc. for your new business idea but that's not a "product", it might as well be a promotional video that you throw away once you've used it to impress the investors. For now that might still work, but people are already catching on and beginning to wise up.

I grew up in a time/place where you never went to the dentist or doctor unless if you were pretty much dying, but at least times are changing now.

Instead do the opposite and give it a really hard problem that's scarce on searchable resources, something that you'll struggle to implement on your own. In general what you'll find is that it seems to implement something, but once you start digging you're just going to discover holes and mistakes all over.

You're the one who should be producing strong groundbreaking work, not the AI.

At about the $10-12 mark you'd be able to hire people with serious linguistic skills.

Even so we still had an incident where two guys walked in and just collected a few laptops before making their escape.

We like to think that we are hyper-vigilant and intelligent as human beings, but in general we tend to just focus on what is in front of us most of the time. We assume that when things are happening that they must be ordinary, or else why would they be happening?

It seems like a prime example for which to use AI to quickly generate the code. You create the base project and give it the data structures and calls, and it quickly spits out a solution. Everything is great so far.

Then you want to implement some market trading, so you need to calculate opportunities from the market orders vs their buy/sell prices vs unit price vs orders per day etc. You add that to the AI spec and it easily creates a working solution for you. Unfortunately once you run it it takes about 24 hours to update, making it near worthless.

The code it created was very cheap, but also extremely problematic. It made no consideration for future usage, so everything from the data layer to the frontend has issues that you're going to be fighting against. Sure, you can refine the prompts to tell it to start modifying code, but soon you're going to be sitting with more dead code than actual useful lines, and it will trip up along the way with so many more issues that you will have to fix.

In the end it turns out that that code wasn't cheap at all and you needed to spend just as much time as you would have with "expensive code". Even worse, the end product is nearly still just as terrible as the starting product, so none of that investment gave any appreciable results.