This struck me too, but I think it is intentionally a high limit to prevent problems like relatively low impact/high LoC tests from tipping a small change into a large one. That would encourage gamification like skipping useful scenarios to keep a change "small".
Something that made MVC, dependency injection, and ORMs more palatable is that there is typically a well-structured interface between "our code" and "their code". The current state of agentic dev rarely has AI doing its thing behind some abstraction layer. It's really more like a new coworker that needs to be steered toward team norms very quickly.
I think the main challenge is pressure for more productivity with AI. I often go back and forth about if I am scrutinizing too much (and not being as productive as I could be) or not enough (and shipping slop). Building the additional QA harnesses and feedback loops for agents seems like the best known path forward to accelerate with some safety, but it is still pretty challenging to context-fiy all of the nuanced judgements a seasoned dev team makes.
Agree with you on model quality, but Anthropic has done a nice job developing stickiness. The connector ecosystem, integrations with desktop apps, browser use, etc. are all pretty compelling for a typical business use scenario. It's expensive, but also a "safe choice" akin to buying IBM or Microsoft back in the day. My workplace (not just developers) is deeply invested in the Claude ecosystem & it would be pretty disruptive to pivot it.
This is spot on. Also, many orgs build to the needs of the business or whims of stakeholders rather than customer needs. Good product strategy and product discovery remain difficult despite AI.
My local Starbucks offers a 10 cents discount and extra loyalty points for bringing your own cup. I've started bringing an insulated one that keeps coffee hot for longer & doesn't sweat with an iced beverage. I seldom see others bringing their own cups, even regulars I see there every week, even when Starbucks themselves sell reusable cups. It is almost like there is a weird stigma about handing the barista something that doesn't come from behind the counter. I encourage trying it, especially if you visit the same coffee shop habitually like I do.
I wonder how much of it comes down to inconvenience. I've been bringing my own thermos for a year or so now and it took me some time to get used to the ritual of scrubbing it with soap and a bottle brush after use every day - at first I found it inconvenient enough that it made me want to just get paper cups.
Now it's a nice little ritual and I am used to the advantages of bringing my own insulated container with a lid - I can carry it back with groceries or do other errands without worrying about my drink spilling or getting cold.
FWIW I do occasionally see other people at my local coffee shop show up with their own mugs, but I agree that it's quite rare.
To be more effective, all drink prices should be reduced by 10 cents, then a 10 cent surcharge added for every disposable cup. The price remains the same for all customers, but the extra line item reveals the external costs.
Fair enough. I use plenty of disposable stuff in other contexts.
The habitual part is what makes a difference for me with my local coffee shop. I usually walk over around midday when I WFH, mostly to move around and re-energize for the second half of the day. Since I know I will be coming right home after, it is easy for me to adjust my ritual to include the cup.
Bringing your own cup is also healthier, because paper cup linings are made of plastic that when exposed to hot liquids are likely to turn into microplastics.
My rule is: 1) keep hot stuff away from plastic, and 2) assume everything is/has plastic unless you know for certain.
I would hope it's a health code violation for a food processing employees to handle something given to them by a customer while processing food without either changing gloves or washing hands.
The Cambridge, MA location still has an aisle of keyboards and mice outside of their packaging. It's very nice to be able to hold and feel those peripherals as part of the shopping experience.
From my experience: re-orgs and limiting backfills for attrition can lead to these awkward states. Someone starts off with a sensible number of directs, but it can devolve over time.
> In limiting the number of bidders, Google inflated the prices for ad inventory.
This part doesn't make sense to me. Limiting bidders should drive the price down, because fewer advertisers are competing for the same potential ad impression. The article describes Google's influence as "Google controls the auction-style system," which is a bit more open-ended about the specific alleged practices.
> It was argued that this approach allows Google to charge higher prices to advertisers while sending less revenue to publishers such as news websites.
It could depend on how they 'limit the number of bidders'. If they sell seats to be able to bid, then the bids are lower to account for that, and publishers get a share of the bid, not the fee bidders pay. I'm guessing though...
You could limit to one mark and a bunch of planted bidders in an attempt to control competition. If you win with your plants, you get to pay yourself anyway.
I think they meant that Google managed to limit the number of bidders for ad placement - they shut out other advertising groups -, so they could then charge what they want to those who need to advertise their business or perish, and take what they want from websites that publish ads as well (take a larger cut from the 'ad inventory' understood either as ad space or ads to be published). In this sense the linked article states:
"The US argues that Google used its financial power to acquire potential rivals and corner the ad tech market, leaving advertisers and publishers with no choice but to use its technology."
reply