Agents merely accelerate and equalize the playing field. And they cost money. We might be a dying breed, but we are the best operators of this technology. And if we want it, this is our moment.

Yes, get into wood working.

Conventional commits doesn’t make a promise, it’s a specification. Words have power and meaning, this viewpoint is about more than a spec, it’s about the popularity and relevance that they clearly despise.

Conventional commits are like BEM syntax for CSS, it works if you pay attention. It’s structure around what developers do, which thoughtful limits. What is the problem with that? Is it the only way? No. But to say it’s encouraging the “wrong things” pshhhh

This author’s take is dog water for coders who yearn to be controversial and (clearly) focus on the wrong things.

There should be an outreach program that goes to the community and works with the people who perform sideshows to make them less disruptive.

Narc tech won’t fix the problem it just wastes money

They had something like Extreme Programming, and it was not a good time from what I heard. If you want to live in la la land of coding for a profitable business, well, sorry to break it to you, but a cohort of smart people need to be led. Notice I said led, not managed.

Also, the role is called Product Owner not Product Manager, I would imagine that was a conscious choice. If a PO feels like a manager, that’s what’s wrong. And maybe why that could be is the engineering team’s fault for having an insatiable need to.. control all aspects of their day-to-day. However, it’s a business at the end of the day, not a coding playground.

The article is basically suggesting POs shouldn’t control the backlog because engineers know better (essentially). Sounds like they’ve had a bad experience and want to vent about it. Fine, but it’s an immature take imho.

I am an engineer myself and I think it’s insulting to the people who have to take the work that engineers do (or fail to do because they want to experiment) and cross the divide and tell the business that the work you’ve done is worth everyone’s salary.

I don’t want to control the backlog with a bunch of other knuckleheads, thanks.

I find it interesting that there’s an assumption that if you exist in this world as a professional software engineer and are successful by all reasonable measures that it somehow predisposes an exposure with leetcode.

I’ve never used it for interviews not because I put energy to avoid it, but because I don’t think it’s all that popular, or maybe I just don’t interview often enough. If I want a new job I wait until I’m emotionally done with the one I’m at and none of the places I have ever interviewed have used it. What, is it that if you’re not using it today then you’re somehow “behind”?

I don’t understand this post at all. What a loaded assumption. Does it do something only Leetcode can do? Is it some holy grail? I’m just burnt out on this tenor of the community here, as if any of these platforms are seated as some kind of hegemony of “the engineering scene” Yawn.

An interview is and will always be a balance of your technical skill and your ability to present your work and deal with timely feedback. That’s it.

So for people who wonder wtf this post is about, you’re not alone.

The indexing feature that search engines for years provided was a side-effect and benefit of the internet’s success.

There have always been challenges with this as it is not immediately clear what should be treated as “primary source” information — it takes time and skill — the user in this model is accountable for their own exploration and consumption of other peoples’ knowledge.

AI seems to be purposefully at odds with that. So, for me, the distrust and avoidance is well-placed.

That said, it’s a powerful tool that has a place in the world, but I hope it doesn’t come at a detriment to the colloquial understanding of what it means to “search the web”