https://ehss.energy.gov/deprep/archive/documents/0308_caib_r...

> But not one of them ever came to me unprompted and said, “Let’s talk about your career growth.”

This quote absolutely floored me. The author had a lot of bad management.

I've also taken to using the Socratic Method when interrogating an LLM. No loaded questions, squeaky clean session/context, no language that is easy to misinterpret. This has worked well for me. The information I need is in there, I just need to coax it back out.

I did exactly this for an exercise a while back. I wanted to learn Rust while coding a project and AI was invaluable for accelerating my learning. I needed to know completely off-the-wall things that involved translating idioms and practices from other languages. I also needed to know more about Rust idoms to solve specific problems and coding patterns. So I carefully asked these things, one at a time, rather than have it write the solution for me. I saved weeks if not months on that activity, and I'm at least dangerous at Rust now (still learning).

That said, I have found that I can get a lot of economy from speaking in terms of jargon, computer science formalisms, well-documented patterns, and providing code snippets to guide the LLM. It's trained on all of that, and it greatly streamlines code generation and refactoring.

Amusingly, all of this turns the task of coding into (mostly) writing a robust requirements doc. And really, don't we all deserve one of those?

For the rest of us, trunk-based development with feature/fix branches is more than enough.

- Install browser that lets you run plugins

- Change user-agent to a desktop browser - any will do

- (optional) run social fixer while you're at it

I completely understand that iOS probably won't let you do this. I've been doing this on Android and Firefox, and the web experience on a phone is... functional. Since it thinks its a desktop, the page layout doesn't always gracefully fit into a portrait form-factor. Landscape mode helps in those cases.

Sometimes, this overlap was quite profound but not 100%. NeoGeo home consoles famously use the same hardware and software as their arcade counterparts, but the game cartridges were not pin-compatible. The Nintendo VS line were technically the same as a Famicom/NES, but not the same build; the software has subtle differences. Perhaps the Nintendo PlayChoice would count but again, it's not like they used NES mainboards to build those.

So, the idea of taking a Nintendo console mainboard and grafting it to SEGA-designed components so it can run in a dedicated arcade cabinet, is just wild to me.

From the top, I absolutely detest this kind of censorship. But the bill states that the implementation will be defined (or rendered infeasible - yeah right) AFTER the bill passes. Said decision will be punted to a "working group" of industry folks. That alone stinks, since it places a lot of abuse potential outside of duly elected representation.

This is an incredibly good point. Like all things of this nature, I liken the process to panning for gold. In truth, you may not want to invest in people that aren't all that invested in you or the activity at hand. It stinks that the success rate is lower than chance, but it's probably better this way.

For me, the dividing line is how compact the language representation is, specifically if you can get the job done in one file or not.

I have no doubt that there's a lot of Go jobs that will fit in a 500 line script, no problem. But the language is much more geared towards modules of many files that all work together to design user-defined types, multi-threading, and more. None of that's a concern for BASH, with Python shipping enough native types to do most jobs w/o need for custom ones.

If you need a whole directory of code to make your bang-line-equipped Go script work, you may as well compile that down and install it to /usr/local/bin.

Also the lack of bang-line support in native Go suggests that everyone is kinda "doing it wrong". The fact that `go run` just compiles your code to a temporary binary anyway, points in that direction.

Ultimately, you're just buying time, generating tamper evidence in the moment, and putting a price-tag on what it takes to break in. There's no "perfectly secure", only "good enough" to the tune of "too much trouble to bother for X payout."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_architecture

That said, I'm unaware of any programming language (outside assembler) that takes that split to heart in a higher-level way.

To solve this, one can be an instrument for change. Network, band people together, evangelize better ways forward, all while not angering management by operating transparently.

Sometimes, that can work... up to a point. To broadcast real change, quickly, you really need anyone managing all the stakeholders to lead the charge and/or delegate a person or people to get it done. So the behavior of directors and VPs counts a lot for both the problem and the solution. It's not impossible to manage up into that state with a lot of talking and lobbying, but it's also not easy.

I'll add that technological transformation of the workplace is so hard to do, Amazon published a guide on how to do this for AWS. As a blueprint for doing this insanely hard task, I think it holds up as a way to implement just about any level of tech change. It also hammers home the idea that you need backing and buy-in from key players in the workforce before everyone else will follow. https://docs.aws.amazon.com/prescriptive-guidance/latest/clo...

I think we can expect HBO streaming to continue as a premium subscription for movies and high-production-value shows. That would let everything else to land on Netflix with no conflict.

There's only one place I disagree and that's when it comes to empowering the team to do every last thing within your charge ("become redundant"). Depending on the organization, there are some actions that only a manager is empowered to do. Someone still needs to be present to weigh in on disputes/arguments, break ties, handle performance, reviews, interviews, PIPs, dismissals, and handle _other_ managers when necessary. It's simply not possible delegate these things and in the case of dealing with other managers, can imperil a person's employment.

Also, I would caution anyone to avoid directly comparing management to parenthood, even as a metaphor. A lot of people have terrible parents, and so model the worst behaviors: they can't nurture a houseplant let alone a human being. I've seen people like this bring the worst possible models for management into the workplace this way, and they do a ton of damage to businesses, psyches, and careers in return. Instead, I urge anyone to look to the carpenter/gardener dichotomy and how good leadership requires a bit of both:

https://www.intellicoach.com/ep14/