Wow I am not looking forward to that in my future interviews. At least showing atomic little micro commits should probably give potential employers a view into your thought process?
Although what am I saying, my current employer keeps pushing us to use AI tooling in our workflows, so I wonder how many employers will really care by then.
I personally don't like using AI - I feel like it takes the fun out of work, and I have ethical issues with it. But I have many co-workers who do not feel this way.
You joke, but there's some truth to this. Better to have a nice tailored report that shows only what's needed to make a decision, than a dump from Looker, Heap, or just a 200MB of CSVs.
Any situation where one group is forced to go along with what another group wants is tyranny, regardless of the sizes of the groups. When the first group is large and the second group is small you have an oligopoly or dictatorship. When the reverse is true you have tyranny of the majority, which isn't much of an improvement.
The democratic ideal is people coming together voluntarily to work toward their common interests, with no one being forced to participate against their will. The right to secede is key—it's not a legitimate democracy if you aren't allowed to leave.
I don't agree. Ideally, everyone could make their own decisions for their own so they aren't forced to go along with others. In that case there isn't even a need for democracy. But frequently, that is not possible – what you call "tyranny" I consider unavoidable and democracy the best way to deal with it.
Majority rule is inherently better than rule by any specific group in two respects: One, more people benefit from it. Even if you have two blocks who always vote together, it's better if 60% benefit at the expense of 40% than vice versa. Two, that doesn't actually happen: Sometimes you are on the winning side, sometimes on the losing one so it somewhat (not perfectly) cancels out.
And democracy isn't just majority rule. Separation of powers and a catalog of fundamental rights are also important to ensure everyone's interests are considered when making a collective decision. So is a culture of just doing so, when voting and in general.
And that is where we disagree. Aggression is often an easier path to achieving your goals—maybe the only viable path in some cases—but it's never "unavoidable". You just have to accept that you won't always get what you want.
> … it's better if 60% benefit at the expense of 40% than vice versa.
Maybe, if you had to choose one or the other. If you're of a utilitarian mindset (I'm not, so this 60%-vs-40% argument carries no weight with me) it would depend on exactly how much benefit vs. how much expense. And it seems to me that democracy more commonly results in a vocal, activist, well-motivated minority receiving concentrated benefits at the expense of the majority. The expense is just more widely distributed, making it hard to get the people on the losing side worked up about it. Example: If I can get $1000 in benefits in exchange for 5,000 other people paying $1 each, I have a strong incentive to lobby and vote for that arrangement. The 5,000 other people would each probably expend more effort fighting the measure (each time it's introduced!) than it would cost them to just let it pass. Not to mention that it makes them look petty and/or greedy, fighting over a mere $1 bill. Yet if the measure passes it would result in a net $4,000 loss to the group. Now repeat that for 1,000 other special-interest proposals… the group that benefits from each proposal varies, but in the end everyone loses.
> Sometimes you are on the winning side, sometimes on the losing one so it somewhat (not perfectly) cancels out.
While it would obviously be a very rare individual indeed who was always on the losing side, I wouldn't say it "cancels out" (even imperfectly). Some see a significant net benefit while others can expect a significant net loss. And then you have the net loss to society as a whole, both in terms of economic overhead (the transfers are not perfectly efficient, and also result in a less productive allocation of resources) as well as morally in terms of normalizing the use of aggression as a "legitimate" means of achieving policy goals.
> And democracy isn't just majority rule.
On that we agree, but in my opinion the "catalog of fundamental rights" recognized by all democracies which fit the definition of "government" (i.e. democracies which do not treat group membership as voluntary and subject to secession, or which fail to recognize and respect the natural personal and property rights of non-members) leaves out certain inconvenient rights which are equally or more fundamental.
Sure you could count every instance of someone not getting their will, which is unavoidable when decisions affect more than one person, as tyranny. But I don't think that's a very useful definition.
I think I can speak from a position of genuine dislike of mouse usage. I enjoy it for certain things, like perusing the web, or clicking through tickets while sipping on a morning coffee. The mouse is a great invention, and I would never want to get rid of it completely.
That said (subjectivity ahead), the mouse becomes annoying only when I'm done thinking, and it's time for doing. Imagine you've got your window manager set up just so, terminal multiplexer sessions all pointed in the right places; and finally, a problem -- and clear solution -- in mind. All that's left is implementation.
You start typing your solution, switching windows to compile or refresh a webpage every now and then. Things are coming together. As you proceed this way, a stroke of brilliance hits you, and you add an extra flourish that resolves an entire class of problems. Welcome to the "Flow State."
Finally, you realize you'll be needing a file from your Teamviewer session with another computer. You foreground that process, and navigate to the remote computer's file manager. So far, you haven't even had to traverse farther than three keys from the homerow.
Unfortunately, to transfer a file over Teamviewer, you'll need to use the mouse. You'll have to click three times to get to the file sharing widget, and use the mouse even more to get your remote/local directories lined up, another click elsewhere to initiate the transfer... close the little confirmation popup that's now obscuring your screen. It's not the end of the world, of course, but your dance has been interrupted.
I'm not sure you'll relate to anything I've stated above, and I'm by no means advocating "going mouseless" as objectively superior to your own preferred flow. Whatever works for you, works for you. I am hoping that my reply might help you get in the head of a keyboard jockey.
By the way, this reply was written with a rather fluffy cat sitting on my mousepad. So I'm not the only one to be inconvenienced when I have to switch to a mouse. Needless to say, George is a huge fan of vim. :)
Not just you, keeping yourself in the flow is why many professionals prefer the keyboard to mouse. Note the word 'professionals', in contrast to a regular computer user browsing Facebook whose curiosity makes him want to easily click on anything that comes to the sight.
I might be a professional when I'm in the zone at the office, but will become a regular user browsing out of curiosity at night.
tldr: the efficiency of the keyboard is contextual.
Navigating code with mouse is much faster then with keyboard only. Things like ctrl+click to see function definition or mouse over to see function documention, variable value or its type. Double click the name before I press shout cut for rename and so on and so forth.
Perhaps, if the only thing you're doing is actual navigation. As soon as you want to also edit said code, you loose said benefit since you're constantly switching between mouse and keyboard.
Als, if you do other actions than "goto definition", you'll also lose that speed very fast. In VS, "find occurrences" is burried somewhere in a rather convoluted context menu, while I can perform the according hotkey (C-k C-r) in a split second.
I either edit or navigate and switch between the two rarely enough. Obviously I don't type with keyboard.
In eclipse you right click the function and the "show callers" is right there. Along with keyboard shortcut so I have the chance to learn it. Along with all other options so I see them and can learn them too.
It is not as if keyboard shortcuts were mutually exclusive with using mouse - unless someone decided that one of these devices is below him. Majority of people uses both and switch between them fat.
> It is not as if keyboard shortcuts were mutually exclusive with using mouse
Of course, nobody said that. The mouse is one of the best user interface devices that has been designed for computing. Just not for working with text.
Now nobody condemns you if you like to use the mouse for browsing your code. However, if I'm right in reading your comment as rather snippy (hard to tell on the internet ;-) ), you seem to be very ready to do that to everyone seeing the merit in getting more proficient with their keyboard...
Also a good year legally for the start of the long fight to end the involvement of child/slave labour in the production of cocoa. See [the Tariff Act of 1930](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/19/1307).
Although what am I saying, my current employer keeps pushing us to use AI tooling in our workflows, so I wonder how many employers will really care by then.
I personally don't like using AI - I feel like it takes the fun out of work, and I have ethical issues with it. But I have many co-workers who do not feel this way.