I am pretty certain that the book of at least 1 of the Abrahamic religions explicitly states that you either believe all of it, or you are not a believer.
What you’re describing is religion applied to every opinion.
I wasn’t patient enough to read the whole thing. But I know Justine to be of extraordinary technical prowess.
I can imagine that someone with that level of talent can be extremely socially unfit - whether intentionally or unintentionally I am unaware. At some point I may have been that way (hoping I am no longer that way, hopefully I was that way with the talent as opposed to without), and I’ve met others who are.
What strikes me as weird is how no manager/leader is able to utilize this absolute treasure of technical ability. I think that makes someone a true leader and/or a capitalist. Anyone can hire average skill who needs the money and is capable of faking sincerity.
Exactly. It doesn't matter how smart or talented you are if you have no soft skills. You can't treat employees as black boxes where business needs go in and business value comes out. Soft skills are the vehicle through which someone interfaces with the company, which is ultimately "just a bunch of people".
You can isolate folks without soft skills to some extent to avoid them butting heads with other people, but at some point they still need to be able to take direction and work with some people.
Softness has not produced anything worth discussion. We're falling over ourselves trying not to hurt each other's feelings as economic dispossession drives the masses closer to killing each other for a portion of rice. It's perverse.
Every iconic output of the past was mercilessly whipped into production by a Torvalds, a Romero, or a Ballmer. Assholes that people hate to work with, yet have just enough soft skills that people put up with them despite it (God knows it's why my wife stays with me).
The death of meritocracy turns every industry into a crab bucket of mediocrity. The weak gang up on the strong and ensure we'll never see another Doom or Linux again, only overvalued middleware (commoditized digital bureaucracy, so sexy) and Chinese shovelware about flightless birds.
There are assholes, and then there are dysfunctional assholes. Modern therapy fails everyone here too, by opting for softness and affirmation instead of just telling people nobody likes them because they're too much of an asshole and they need to figure their shit out. Jart has always struck me as someone with an undiagnosed personality disorder that I'm going to get yelled at for even suggesting, which should say a lot about what outcome they wish to see. This is how systems fail brilliant people enough to fall through the cracks. We're not allowed to say anything until they commit suicide, and then it's "just a shame." I've only ever seen such deliberate dysfunction within female social circles.
Terry Davis wrote an entire operating system despite being a homeless, elder abusing, schizophrenic racist. The transphobic Nazis at Kiwi Farms write a game for it every year just to celebrate his memory and achievement and prove his architecture sound. We are told these are the worst people on the planet, yet they uplift the fringe characters of society and push the boundaries of experience-- the spirit that used to belong to hackers.
But today's "hackers" are a cult of HR, while demented racists with no patience for their lies, abuse and orthodoxy get to have all the fun beyond the wall. No wonder leftists hate them. You people are about as fun as Jehovah's Witnesses.
Jart might as well create a KF account. She'd be well-received by the terrible transphobes who'd appreciate her technical chops.
The quote in the original comment assesses the survey responses as "impossible". A good-faith reading of the comment is that the professor was not talking about a handful of respondents.
Nobody is doubting that there are some people who watch films 10–12 hours a day, every day of the week.
I mean, if you don’t like refactoring, which is my absolute favorite, it’s hard to believe you understand software engineering and software architecture.
Tedium absolutely exists in coding. And is usually a sign of bad interfaces and/or architecture.
For most of us it wasn’t really about getting the user to do X. It’s getting the user to do X at 1/10th of the price, 10x the speed, and the user is left absolutely amazed.
Magic is for the user to experience. Not for the user of the programming language.
> it’s hard to believe you understand software engineering and software architecture.
I made over $500k TC writing active-active high availability services that moved billions of dollars a day. I've been around the block.
> Magic is for the user to experience. Not for the user of the programming language.
Why are you treating our primitive technology as holy? It's all temporary fucking garbage that is a limitation of our current civilizational abilities.
Do you think the Linux kernel will live forever? I think we'll be done with it before 2050. Seriously.
Everything you think is permanent is just temporary.
I would rather be building star ships and holodecks and engineering 10,000 year human lifespans, brain uploads, and stuff like that than worrying about the craftsmanship of some dumb web service.
I think you should dream more and worry about the current station of SWEs less. We're merely a stepping stone.
You and I are stepping stones. We're dust.
None of what we do today will be relevant in some short decades. And that is a blip on the geologic timescales.
I was born too early for this bullshit. I don't like living with you neanderthals, especially when you don't want to step out of the cave.
Thankfully I don't have to worry about this tech winning. It already is. You can keep up or hold your nose until you're out of a job. There are plenty of other things you could do, I just wouldn't bet on being a truck driver.
Didn’t know I’d ever get to use the phrase “banal platitudes,” which is how I’d describe much of this post.
Obviously and literally everything is temporary and will be replaced by something better. And those who are born into it will call it “temporary garbage.”
Thanks for the bonus ad hominems. Made it all more convincing.
However, the amount of money and energy spent on trying to convince people that “AI will take jobs”, by parties who would benefit from it, implies that these parties maybe don’t fully believe it, or believe that it needs to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
If I am certain that I am winning, I sure don’t need to yell it from mountain tops. Unless my winning depends on everyone believing it.
I understood the intention of the statement and actually agree with it mostly. My point was just about the line of reasoning. But then again I also mostly agree that "AI" will make many jobs superfluous. People like Schmidt don't just try to announce that into reality; their point is about speeding up the process as they are invested in it and benefit from it happening earlier than if things would just progress naturally.
What you’re describing is religion applied to every opinion.
reply