This is such a bad idea, it's impressive.

At gitlabs team size, that means every manager has 2-3 reports? Yeah, I'd be cutting layers too.

(Saying this as a strong advocate for diversity and inclusion, lest there's confusion)

It may sound like pseudo-Buddhist claptrap, but it's also true. Or, I suppose, Fight Club claptrap. It's still true.

The choice is "do you want to participate in society, its benefits and drawbacks". You can't have only one side of that.

This is extremely funny given we're the industry full of folks that brought the world QS and longevity hacks, together with the peptide boom.

"But that is only because doctors don't keep current/have preconceived notions"

Which would never happen to designers?

Look, I don't mind paying a lot of taxes. If there's service you get for it. And I'm deeply in the blue camp. But CA leadership (state/county/city) is still an utter disaster and needs to be tossed out on its ear.

Kidding aside, that kind of misses the point of either.

I haven't been in a single metrics discussion where we didn't talk about what we're actually measuring, if it reflects what we want to measure, and how to counterbalance metrics sufficiently so we don't build yet another growthhacking disaster.

Doesn't mean that metrics are perfect - they are in fact aggravatingly imprecise - but the ground truth is usually somewhat better than "you clicked it, musta liked it!"

You obviously still need to use signing pipeline etc, but that can all be done via CLI.

As for "non-trivial", here are Chrome's build instructions for macOS: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/HEAD/docs/m...

Which contains the words "While using Xcode is unsupported" :)

People anthropomorphize. Nobody really finds it "jarring" in most contexts.

Early participation and beta programs are outsourcing careful engineering via making everybody else guinea pigs. If we want to sling around accusations of free-riding (really?!), you're slacking on testing and free-riding on your early users.

I didn't miss that point. I'm saying it's blown out of proportion, and that diminishes the value of the actually important content.

Yes, AF447 crashed due to lack of training for a specific situation. And yet, air travel is safer than ever.

Yes, that Tesla drove into a wall, and yet robotaxis exist, work well, and are significantly safer than human drivers.

Yes, there are a lot of "witchcraft" approaches to working with AI, but there are also significant accelerations coming out of the field that have nothing to do with AI.

Yes, AI occasionally makes very stupid mistakes - but ones any competent engineer would have guardrails in place against.

And so a lot of the piece spends time arguing strawmen propped up by anecdotes. And that detracts from the deeply necessary discussion kicked off in the second part, on labor shock, capital concentration, and fever dreams of AI.

The problem of AI isn't that it's useless and will disrupt the world. It's that it's already extremely useful - and that's the thing that'll lead to disrupting the world.

It also means you're so helpless as a developer that you could never debug another person's code, because how would you recognize the errors, you haven't made them yourself.

"We recognise you are attempting to access this website from a country belonging to the European Economic Area (EEA) including the EU which enforces the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and therefore cannot grant you access at this time. For any issues, e-mail us at info@franklinnews.org or call us at (847) 497-5230."

This is extremely funny given it's an article about privacy concerns :)