We solve business problems through technology and to me it’s quite concerning how many developers think their job was knowing syntax of a particular language. Nobody besides themselves care about the syntax of a particular language, certainly the business doesn’t care. I question if retaining your knowledge of programming languages is that important anymore, but your ability to read code if needed (after all, most programming languages are quite similar so it’s not that hard), do architectural and systems thinking, yes. More than ever before.

Honestly, the fear-mongering around AI replacing developers seems to really just expose the developers who never learned architectural and systems thinking, and were just translating Jira tickets to code. While I do not wish job loss upon anyone, I’m not very surprised if those types of jobs will disappear.

I guess time will tell if the consumer will adapt to the lower quality of products, allowing companies to justify the existence of lazy and incompetent developers, or if the consumer will push back, forcing companies to increase the quality of their developers.

Note: I use AI every day and it is entirely possible to create high quality software with it, so long as you are not lazy and incompetent.

His so-called "democratize publishing" persona is just a complete facade.

- Not listening to user feedback for years until people started leaving the OS, at which point they started "listening" to add back things like taskbar location changing, things that were present in previous Windows versions. Also seems like every update breaks stuff, they clearly don't care about testing the stuff they put out.

- Every keystroke or button you click on Windows sends telemetry to their ad partners. Probably same on all their other products, too

- Built-in ads on PAID products

- Spying on everything you do with things like Windows Copilot and Recall

- Filing patents to monitor your activities to show ads, black mirror style

- Force-feeding their own agenda to their users instead of listening what users want (look what they did to Github after buying it)

- Their own Edge browser is horrendous spyware. If you go and download Google Chrome, it will tell you with a popup that Edge is better and you shouldn't download Chrome. Not to mention that many screens of dark pattern popup you have to "yes|later" before you can even use the browser

And the list goes on. Honestly I don't know if they've done anything user-centric in recent memory at all. And if they have, it's usually only because the media has villainized them to the point where their PR team says they can no longer ignore it. They don't seem to ever proactively care about their users, only retroactively when abusing their users has crossed some public line.

That's true, of course, but the fact that there are people in the company thinking like that to begin with, enough to think it's worth patenting such anti-human stuff, is plenty enough for me to never want anything to do with them.

Unfortunately I see a lot of (senior as well) engineers who think that just a vanilla LLM reviewing another LLM is sufficient, and my comment was directed towards those. If however you see the LLM era as needing more test support and systems than ever before in the form E2E tests and so forth, where "code review" as such becomes mostly irrelevant as you have such a strong test system in place that if that passes you can be sure it doesn't break anything for users, then yes, that's good.