> Before that the manager was essentially the best engineer in the team

I'm not sure that's ever been true.

A majority of the big corporations I've worked at this was the typical developer track.

- entry level dev

- senior dev (start being groomed for management)

- senior dev/leader (take on 25% management duties)

- manager - management track.

Once you're on a management track, you essentially are taken off of any dev work and then depending on how well you've networked determines how fast you move up the management chain. Some companies like Target, they groom and move anybody up relatively fast who they see any potential in.

The only exceptions I've seen in my career are either startups or medium sized companies where there is no management track. You're a developer from the day you're hired until you either get fired, laid off or leave the company.

When I was an entry level dev, I left three companies because they wanted to start grooming me to move up into management. I was way more into being a developer and writing code then managing people.

I'm bottom 75%.

That is brave. Unless you have 5 DWIs to prove how bad a driver you are, or something equally bad... Or maybe you have finally realized old age has destroyed your mind and so you no longer have a drivers license (though this is rare).

Honestly I have no idea how I would objectively rate my driving. I know a few things that I do better than everyone else - but I have no idea what bad things I'm doing that I'm unaware of. I don't know if the bad things I avoid are the really bad things that make me much better, or if they are just minor things and the things I'm unaware of are much more important. About the only thing everyone knows about is that driving drunk is really really bad, but most people don't do that.

I said "bottom 75%", not "bottom 7.5%".

Exactly, most everyone thinks they are better that 75%

> We already had an effort by the left.

You mean the one based on Mitt Romney's approach?

Yep, that Obama spearheaded and was the keystone piece of legislation of the entire administration

> Was the era from 1900 to 2000 so special/different as to be a one-off?

It kind of was, and one of the people you can thank for that is Norman Borlaug.

As King Thamus said to Theuth.

Might still be a step up from Facebook.

Nethack has been around since 1987, it's a little late for spoilers.

We’re in a thread about Nethack 5.0 release, I think it’s safe to say not everyone in this thread has finished the game.

OP is talking about a several decade old version of nethack, not nethack 5.0.0.

I've never understood why something being so old is an excuse to spoil. Many people weren't old enough to be alive when it was last a cultural icon and may not have heard about it until this thread.

I never said being old is an excuse to spoil. My comment was solely in response to OP's comment, which specifically mentioned the fact that this is a thread about Nethack 5.0.0. The fact that we are in a thread about Nethack 5.0.0 is not relevant to the particular spoiler at hand.

Not me! Maybe some day, but losing can be fun too.

People still play this game. Spoilers still spoil experiences for others.

Meh, imo spoilers only spoil experiences for people who take media too seriously.

When I consider watching a movie, one of the first things I do is read a complete plot summary, including the ending. When I do this and no longer want to watch the movie, in my mind, that’s not a sign that any experience was spoiled, but rather that it just wasn’t very interesting to begin with.

Conversely, I have played Nethack on and off for decades, have read countless spoilers about it, yet still haven’t won and still find it interesting.

I generally agree.

But there are movies that can be spoiled because of the big plot twist.

Eg. The Sixth Sense, Fight Club, to name a few (and [anime] Your Name, even the recently released Cosmic Princess Kaguya)

And then there are some movies where the plot is so obvious that you could have a LLM one-shot predict the whole thing.

That said if the movie/game/whatever is released for a couple years, I think the spoiler warnings should be optional regardless.

I play a lot of experimental games where not knowing what the plot is is the point of the game. Doki Doki Literature Club is one such game. The experience is the point, not the plot.

Many films are meant to be experienced, not just read or watched. Otherwise what's the point of a movie when you can just read a screen play? Or what's the point of a screen play when you can just read a synopsis?

1) NetHack is not one of those games

2) If you want to avoid spoilers, you should probably avoid discussion threads about the subject, because people will often discuss their experiences in such threads

I agree Nethack is not one of those games. People always pretended it was, though. They called "spoilers" what would be called documentation in most games. No one didn't use them (the "unspoiled" win mentioned elsewhere in the thread was a stretch even if you take them at their word). It was supposed to be theoretically possible to find out core game features from e.g. random rumors, but that was completely hypothetical - I'm pretty sure at no point in Nethack's development was it ever playtested with new players.

Not just random rumours, there are multiple specific mechanisms built into the game that explain core features, which a curious player can stumble on and then deliberately mine for information.

NetHack in many ways has common heritage with text-based adventure games of the 1970s and 80s, such as Zork. NetHack’s in-game currency is even a reference to Zork! Solving Zork without spoilers is also extremely difficult, despite lacking the tactical combat of NetHack. However, playing Zork with spoilers completely ruins the game, whereas NetHack is still a lot of fun even for highly spoiled players.

1. It doesn't have to be for the experience of the plot to be important.

2. Fair point but with a game like nethack I'd say a majority of folks are interested in discussing the development of nethack without necessarily discussing the plot. HN has no concept of spoiler tags nor topiced threads so it's not really easy to contain the discussion per-thread.

Besides even if you don't care about spoilers, a lot of people do, regardless of your thoughts on how you personally like to experience media.

I actually tend to live a remarkably spoiler free life, but that's mostly by avoiding threads that would give spoilers on things I care about.

Like, it's fine to care about spoilers, you just can't expect a random community that doesn't even have the concept of spoiler tags to accommodate your desire. Doubly so since that desire is competing with the desire of others to discuss the topic.

I'm also not even sure where you'd draw the distinction with a game like NetHack - how do you discuss a change on how to acquire Excalibur without discussing how to acquire Excalibur, or spoiling that you can reliably acquire it?

I agree, you can't expect this community to hide spoilers about stuff. I have seen random spoilers in topics that weren't even about media (in classic HN fashion, random tangents start to talk about books or movies). Sometimes they would attempt to mark a spoiler by adding a bunch of lines of spoiler, then the reader could just collapse the comment thread.

That said, I haven't played enough nethack to even understand the spoilers so I'll probably forget about it. I'm primarily in this thread because because my dad introduced nethack to me when I was a kid, so seeing 5.0 is an incredible accomplishment and the meta discussion about it is fascinating.

Agree 100%.

I watched Million Dollar Baby for the first time a year or two ago. I thought it was just a boxing movie, something like rocky or something.

I don't think reading the synopsis would have affected me like that movie did. I thought about it for days afterwards.

Never watched, or even cared to watch, but now I'm curious! Thanks for the rec!

I disagree with your movie watching routine. A movie is more than just its plot.

In your opinion, a movie is more than just its plot. Not everyone values the elements of movies the same way.

> Either the code can be merged or it can't.

Not an intuitionist, I see.

If you are an intuitionist, excluded middle isn't an axiom, but is still provable/assertable on a case-by-case basis. This is a scenario where asserting it is entirely reasonable.

The whole point of a VCS is that your code exists in a superposition of merged and unmerged.

"No way to prevent this,' says only industry where this regularly happens.

> When I was a kid ... With the new generation

Let's be real tho, there's a whole lot of people who have been around enough to know better that do this too.