PRs are the final chance to avoid mishaps; be it some junior overdoing DRY, be it someone in the team misunderstanding (or insufficiently understanding) a requirement, something being forgotten, edge-case missed - practically anything! Before/During PR, a single person owns the code, after merge it's everyone in the project.
Someone who just rubberstamps PRs works either in a completely different setting than anything I can imagine or it's just someone who doesn't take ownership & responsibility as serious as I'd require people I want to work with; I can't quite see much room for gray area there...
Very well put. A PR is the final (and ultimate) chance to say "no" to a change - after that it's part of the software, it needs to be maintained, it can have impact on stability/quality etc.
I don't quite understand how someone in charge of a software (techlead or similar title) can't take this serious; I know a few such people and I generally prefer to avoid working with them...
We're at a point where the biggest possible contribution to humanity of many PMs in big corps would be to just... drop dead. Feature-freeze rather than furthering the enshittification, as that seems all they're capable of.
I'd wish the world would just become boring again.
Tao can use LLMs on his own terms, on his conditions. Under those circumstances, it's an absolutely fantastic tool.
In an enterprise, everyone gets to use LLMs. Everyone can create slop. In an enterprise environment, this can lead to weird situations where the senior has to put in extra efforts to contain the slop of others... so I can kind of see where the "hinders seniors" is coming from.
I don’t think it’s even “seniors” containing slop of others.
I think it’s those who still care about quality (which seems to be decreasing in the industry overall) trying to keep the whole thing running, in a sea of people who think going really really fast and not understanding their code is fine because LLMs can make sense of it and clean it up later.
Just look at the condition of open source contributions recently
That was the most "the emperor wears no clothes"-moment I've ever witnessed in my life. I play more PoE than I care to admit, and it was obvious within mere seconds that he has absolutely no clue what's going on.
It started with d4 before poe and was painfully obvious then. Poe was just icing on the cake as it is not for the casual.
It is also so bizarre to brag about rankings for games where the grind to end game is a massive time sink. It wasnt like he was some LoL god where there is no grind only skill.
Honestly we should define 80% as the new "100%" on such batteries and label "charging to full" as "overcharging".
Psychologically, people understand charging a battery to "125%" (or whatever) a lot better: Do it when you really need to but if you do it all the time it wears down the battery a lot faster.
Nice idea. I think the reason it's not communicated as such is that then companies would be expected to advertise time on battery when charged to 100%, not 125%.
The Samsung phone I use these days has a "Protect Battery" mode that can be toggled (both manually and with automatic user-defined routines). It limits maximum charge to 85%. For those who want it: That's the ~same thing, without the psychological trick.
It also has some other settings that relate to smart charging that I don't fully understand (mostly because it's kind of inscrutable).
But the idea, AFAICT, is that it works with a person who charges their phone on a fairly regular schedule (they sleep at about the same time every night with plugged in all night).
The battery meanders up to 85% or something and holds there. Shortly before the person normally wakes up, it starts coming the rest of the way up to 100%. And then they wake up, unplug the phone, and it begins to discharge.
This helps to minimize the duration of being at a high state-of-charge, which is also a big factor in long-term battery longevity.
I recently investigated large portable power banks (Jackery, etc.) and like that there are options to charge faster with a battery life tradeoff. Let people make their own informed choices.
No nagware but, at least on the machines of my colleagues, an even worse enemy: Microsoft Defender with all the checkboxes ticked. Grinds the machine to an absolute halt for any development work - sometimes the responsible security department has mercy and gives exceptions for certain folders/processes, sometimes not.
My work machine is grossly slow due to all the various security software.
Loading Teams can take minutes. I'm often late to meetings waiting for the damn thing to load.
Feels like early 90s computing and that Moore's Law was an excuse for bad coding practices and pushing newer hardware so that "shit you don't care about but is 'part of the system'" can do more monitoring and have more control of 'your' computer.
From my tests defender has minimal impact on performance even when doing a full scan, except for making some io slower when you're e.g. unpacking new files but NTFS is plenty slow by itself there
Enterprise likes to layer multiple invasive security products though that'll do a lot worse than defender
Ubisoft launcher being so bad that people prefer the cracked, launcher-free version should go down in the history as example of some of the worst product-management there is.
I'm totally in the same boat; I've not bought several Ubisoft-games I was interested in playing because their launcher is such a cancer (if anyone from Ubisoft is on HN: What on earth are you guys smoking?).
I'm too lazy to bother with pirating games these days (I have more games than time to play them anyway), but younger me would've certainly went to the high seas to circumvent their ridiculous insult of a game launcher.
As an avid gamer myself, I fully agree with your point. I guess in this thread there are a lot of people who, due to them being in tech, have a bit of a relationship with games but it's not really a big hobby. And as it happens, Steam has a few policies that trigger some intellectually motivated objections - nice in theory but practically irrelevant for gamers who play games on a regular basis.
As a matter of fact, in case the nostalgia itch really does hit, Steam actually enables a relatively easy 're-release' of old games that many publishers started doing - often with no further addition except the promise that it'll run on modern hardware/OS hassle-free.
I've re-bought games I've played in the 90s/2000s on Steam even though I already owned them and probably still have the CD lying around somewhere, but I just can't be arsed to go through the troubles of installing from them. Pay a few bucks, click a button and I'm up and running.
Someone who just rubberstamps PRs works either in a completely different setting than anything I can imagine or it's just someone who doesn't take ownership & responsibility as serious as I'd require people I want to work with; I can't quite see much room for gray area there...