If it can be validated by automation, the bot will do it. But no automation suite is complete or perfect.

What concerns me is that building software using the LLMs gives a distance that inhibits the formation of the sort of understanding I need to "just know" a code base intuitively. So when product asks for a feature, my ability to be sufficiently pedantic about the 6 different non-obvious things this impacts is less effective. And when I need to choose abstractions and try to form an effective ontology, my intuition is less effective. I believe I can still grind out an effective solution, but I start farther from the finish line.

Does the LLM's ability to "answer questions" about the codebase make up for my lack of intuition? Does my apparent ability to run faster make up for the fact that I am starting farther from the end of the race?

I don't know yet.

https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3514.txt

Even selecting things in the UI has sucked. I went in and increased the selection radius or whatever, that helped. But really, should I need to do this as a new user?

Getting the constraints to behave is like pulling teeth.

It also kind of sucks that you have to have really sparse sketches that only contain one closed figure. I gather you can create a "master sketch" and selectively project geometry into other sketches. But the last few times I've tried the app, I haven't gotten far enough into my sketches before rage quitting to validate the technique.

Right now I am back F360 with their hobby license wanting to escape their regular messing with the terms and conditions.

Try using the arrow keys to navigate. It took me multiple tries to get it figured out.

Use up/down to navigate within a chapter/topic. Use left/right to switch between topics.

I'm a Civ3 hater, give me 2 or 4 any day. 3 is my least favorite version of the game.

But, OTOH, my wife is ride or die for Civ3.

This is a Catch 22 for elected officials. We must reduce housing costs dramatically if we do so, we will devalue significant assets of a large number of active voters and political contributors.

I'd love to see some ideas on how to pull this off, because we need them.

1. contacts - these come in the form of peers who are interested in the same things and in the form of experts in their fields of study. Talking to these people and developing relationships will help you learn faster, and teach you how to have professional collegial relationships. These people can open doors for you long after graduation.

2. facilities - ever want to play with an electron microscope or work with dangerous chemicals safely? Different schools have different facilities available for students in different fields. If you want to study nuclear physics, you might want to go to a school with a research reactor; it's not a good idea to build your own.

1. you are violating a previously agreed upon standard for naming things

2. inconsistent naming, eg some places you use "catalog ID" and other places you use "item ID" (using separate words and spaces here because case is irrelevant).

3. the name you chose makes it easy to conflate two or more concepts in your system

4. the name you chose calls into question whether you correctly understood the problem domain you are addressing

I'm sure there are other good naming comments, but this is a reasonable representation of the kinds of things a good comment will address.

However, most naming comments are just bike shedding.

Wales can no more disavow the PM than California can disavow POTUS. So this separate status is limited.

The big counter to this is the idea that US states have their own militaries. States may have militias, but they can be subsumed by the federal government pretty easily, as we saw in California in 2025. They are not truly independent armed forces.

OTOH, states are not allowed to leave the US, we had a war about this a while ago. Meanwhile Scotland had a referendum on leaving the UK a few years ago.

Love it or hate it, we are Americans first before we are New Yorkers or Mississipians and so forth. This is especially true when it comes to international relations; that's handled on a federal level and most people in the world couldn't tell a Nebraskan from an Alaskan.

Most of the time it doesn't really matter. But if you know you want to append to a word you can hit that target immediately by using `e` (`ea`). Or if you want to prepend, you can use `wi`.

Note that `i` and `a` have a similar pairing to `w` and `e`.

Consider the command `d` (delete) combined with the motions for `"`.

First we have `da"`, it deletes the everything between the pair of `"` characters that surround my cursor. Next, `di"` deletes the contents of the `"` pair.

The movement `a"` is inclusive (think 'a quote') and `i"` is exclusive (think 'inside quote'). Combined with the command you get "delete a quote" and "delete inside quote" when the mnemonics are spelled out.

https://vimhelp.org/motion.txt.html#exclusive

It’s like calling someone a “stropping young lad”.

For the love of all that is good, "exacerbated" and "exasperated" are different words.

We've already screwed up "home in on" by allowing the horrid "hone in" to horn in our lexicons. On a side note, watch out for those honing pigeons, they've got very sharp beaks.

In a larger org, it may also make sense to have a separate QA group that handles tasks across all teams and focuses on the product as a unified whole.

If you're a talented SDET, you're probably also, at least, a good SDE.

If you'll make more money and have more opportunity as an SDE, which career path will you follow?

But it turns out that that is no longer the case. https://obsidian.md/blog/free-for-work/

Obsidian is now actually free for everyone.