https://ntindependent.com.au/scientist-says-ministers-pole-f...

https://ntindependent.com.au/scientist-says-ministers-pole-f...

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48893309

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

#LiarDreaming

a personal attack would be eg calling him a DC.

all I did was point out the intellectual dishonesty of his argument. that's an attack on his intellectually dishonest argument, not his person.

by all means go ahead and ban me

so, generally at the edge (gateways, shims, protocol boundaries)

if you're not sure which you want its probably container

The comment is an artefact of an inherently valuable process, not the sole objective. So I'd prefer code is reviewed by a human who maybe initiates a discussion with an agent. I'd hope this minor workflow detail encourages the human to take a more active lead, rather than risk mere ceremonial approval.

some (many?) devs don't want agents. Either because the agent takes away the 'fun' part of their work, or because they don't trust the agent, or because they truly do not find a use for it in their process.

I remember being on teams which only remained functional because two devs tried very hard to stay out of one another's way. Nothing wrong with either of them, their approach to the work was just not very compatible.

In the same way, I expect diverse teams to struggle with finding a mode of adoption that does not negatively impact on the existing styles of some members.

I've seen that these tools have different uses for different devs. I know on my current team, each of us devs works very differently to one another, and we make significant allowances to accommodate for one another's different styles. Certain tasks always go to certain devs; one dev is like a steel trap, another is the chaos explorer, another's a beginner, another has great big-picture perspective, etc. (not sure why but there's even space for myself ;)

In the same way, different devs use these powerful tools in very different ways. So don't imagine you're falling behind, because the only useful benchmark is yourself. And don't imagine you can wait for consensus: you'll still need to identify your personal relationship to the tools.

Most of all, don't be discouraged. Even if you never embrace these tools, there will remain space for your skills and your style of approaching our shared work.

Give it another 10 years and I'm sure this will all become clearer...

forget: there I go again.

kindness beats terror.

However:

We DO live in a late-stage-capitalist hellscape.

Large companies ARE run by aspiring robber barons who have no serious convictions beyond desiring power.

I have compromised my principles by giving them (or anyone) my labor.

but I don't lie to myself or anyone else about it. I don't find any need to rehabilitate the structural and personal failings I encounter. When my friends call me out for working at EvilCorp, I don't argue. I know it's like any job: it's all dirty money. Instead, I deal with reality: weigh up pros and cons. I judge each year just how much Corporate I'm willing to swallow to support my dependents.

I enjoy the author's redefinition of cynicism and optimism. These are useful ideas to consider and I've given it some thought, arriving at an attitude of Becoming that I guess some would call idealism.

PS OMFG I just realised its MS. I believe this is what the kids call cringe.

More than two things can be utterly disgusting at the very same time!