L(° O °L)

I am also not a lifelong reader, I didn't start reading until college. My girlfriend read a ton and the first Lord of the Rings movie was about to come out, I got caught up in the excitement and read all the books. Ever since then, I've read pretty steadily. Interesting though, it wasn't social media or anything that slowed my reading to a trickle, it was audiobooks. I freakin love them when the narrator is good. Anyway, that's how I got back to reading and now I haven't listened to an audiobook in a while. :)

A better response to my comment could have been "just let it go" or something. ₍₍(˶>ᗜ<˶)⁾⁾

I have started just using Postgres to back queues. It is simpler (although I have spun up new apps with Redis so many times it is only a small improvement) but more importantly it is cheaper. I really do try a lot of stuff out, so completely removing a infrastructure piece is a nice money saver. Again, not massive but it's cheaper.

The downsides of doing this in the prototype/MVP context are minimal. At the scale of prototype and MVPs, I certainly don't see any difference in performance.

I did note in the graphic it listed Kafka but in the lower table graphic I did not see any Postgres replacement for Kafka. If I am at the scale where I really want Kafka, it is probably for performance and I just can't believe there's anyway Postgres could provide that.

So, I love the flexibility and all-in-one abilities of Postgres for prototyping and making MVPs. But at my job, nobody is proposing exclusively using Postgres for persistence.

In my experience this is what a lot of product managers do but more importantly they are talking to users, talking to stakeholders, and having discussions with the the team to define the product. His description seems more of the project manager role.

> If a manager isn’t contributing to the why, the what, or the trust system that holds the how, it’s hard to say what they’re doing.

I think people management is a large part of engineering management. There are definitely other aspects that are significant but I the author made no argument for AI taking over people management nor did they really mention it at all. Also if the other work is all translation and is getting compressed, I don't think the author made any argument as to why the 'non contributing manager' suddenly has to contribute?

Seems like the author's old thesis was that non-contributing managers are inefficient or something. Then, without really explaining why they are saying that AI has made his argument stronger.

If things change to token usage billing for everyone, maybe I'll be singing a different tune but on a subscription, I don't think it makes sense financially.

Fun? Yes. Financially sound? No.