Cognitive Surrender. I can feel it happening every time I use this employer-mandated Cursor crap. I’m fighting it as hard as I can. Every AI slop pull request I have to review makes me die a little more inside.
(Edit: I’m glad this was so well received, but people are hating on my “assembler isn’t as difficult as people think” post below. Oh well.)
First, I love this analogy. At the end of the day someone is still analyzing and decomposing problems, and whether you use AI primarily to search and summarize, to recommend, or to write some goofy starter unit tests, it should still be the human writing the code.
… and now I can’t unsee this rule of three crap. Ever since I heard about an author getting busted for using AI, and all the talk about how AI generates in “rule of three”, I keep looking at my own writing and saying “wait, I do this too. People are going to think my posts are by an AI.” Every part of this post was written by a human software developer on a cell phone while I should be getting ready for work instead.
Also I feel like pointing out: assembler is the human-accessible version, where you break code into files and procedures, give things useful names, you have a symbol table that gives you the addresses where your names ended up. You can insert things and edit things and all the addresses shift around to accommodate your changes automatically. You add comments, even block comments. You “inline” methods with assembler macros.
I would say assembler is more accessible than people think, and complex programs don’t require as much of the “hold everything in your brain at once” horsepower as people think.
99%? We can get these numbers lower :-)
Like the American Squid Game reality show? It uses squibs and has contestants pretending to die in a lamp-shaded way (gets caught, remote controlled squib goes off, looks down disappointed, after a short reaction time and thinking delay they lay down in a safe way - or jump-fall like a stunt person). Maybe they have a bigger special effects budget and don’t interview the “dead” people after?
What have you tried?
There’s a lot of “And then for some reason we did this, and it was more complexity” in this paper. I think that’s missing the point of languages, as a conversion layer between machine code and weird, squishy human brains. We think better, hold abstractions in our minds better, when the language maps more closely with how we’re structuring the problem in our minds.
Not sure if you were even looking for paper reviews.
Buying the company usually means buying all of their user information as well. Other companies can change their policies too. I think you should judge them by their actions, and give them a chance to answer your questions before you condemn them.
(Did you try asking them about your concerns?)
I’m with you, stuck at a billion dollar software company with an AI fetish. It’s a great search tool, can write some decent unit tests. But God help you if you let it write production code, for any of the “you won’t find this on stackexchange” stuff we all work on.
Traffic shapers can prioritize connections or streams differently, even if they can’t see inside them. Higher priority for quick connections, like interactive web page views, diminished priority for “oops that’s actually a bulk download it seems”.
This, 100%. Use whatever language you’re fast and fluent with. If you don’t have any of those yet, C is a good choice. Get books and tutorials from the 90s or 2000s and OpenGL is a great place to start.
The most limited resource that you have to manage would be your own energy and passion. Don’t go out and seek that dopamine hit of validation from others until you’ve built something. “I want to build something” is OK, but “I’ve started building something, it runs somewhat, here’s a repo, I’m stuck, HAAAALP!” is way more compelling.
Different domains need different authentication flows. If the provided email ends in a domain they recognize, instead of prompting for a password you’d be sent to another auth provider to authenticate there.
As a Sennheiser HMDC 27 user, unsure if top left or top right. I’ll be playfully attacked enough for both I guess :-)
Wikipedia has citations. Check out the links at the bottom as well as inline citations.