I bought a NYC to Boston ticket for a few weeks from now for $35 this morning. Depends on many factors but once you know you can easily buy the cheap tickets.
SetUpdatedToNow
- set %content.updated% as %now% in the file "file.txt"
The whole reading and writing feels like a leftover from the days of programming. Reading it in, modifying and then writing assume it fits in memory, leaves out ideas around locking, filesystem issues, writing to a temp and swapping, etc. Giving the actual intent lets the LLM decide what is the best way which might be reading in , modifying and then writing.
The way I designed the language I had the current languages in mind. Don't forget you are programming, it's just more natural, you need details
But also the main reason is that it's much more difficult to solve the intent when mixing multiple action into the same step. In theory it's possible but the language isn't there yet.
> hire professional fakers and let them drive the company into the ground.
This sounds like someone who is looking for someone to blame. If founder after founder is having this problem what are the odds that there is something else going on and perhaps the reports are doing exactly what the founder is rewarding?
I see in a lot of tech companies is a system where all the incentives are about getting promoted. IC's are trying to build things that look big and complex and "hard". Future maintenance burden, product impact, etc are difficult to measure and also super easy to game. All that matters is that they might get promoted so they can jump teams and do it again. Managers are promoted based on headcount and do everything they can to keep reports and grow like weeds. A dysfunctional org? Yes please, let me triple it in size to solve the problem, we have the money and this org is important, and I become important in the process. Sure some (not all) might need to grow the top line by X%, but in a growing industry/product category/company that might be the default so the focus is again on growing their career. They spend all their time on hiring and annual reviews and promo committees and almost no time on actual strategy. And getting rid of under performers was difficult and as long of a process as possible because there was no incentive to make that simple.
As long at the tide rises all boats and the CEO rewards this behavior everyone plays this game. When the water starts flowing out suddenly you have a CEO looking around going wtf when everyone did exactly what they incentivized.
The connection between autism and atypical estrogen signaling has been something I have been studying for a while. This paper explicitly mentions Aromatase, but there are other routes to have estrogen signaling insufficiency or excess such as genetic variants on ESR1. For anyone that wants a deeper dive into sex hormones hormones, how it modulates the brain and in particular estrogen deficiency checkout this well put together literature review: "Giftedness and atypical sexual differentiation: enhanced perceptual functioning through estrogen deficiency instead of androgen excess" https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/endocrinology/articles/...
Many software engineers can be found in this group as having enhanced spatial visualization skills is a perfect fit for coding.
A way to look at this is that death is an evolutionary advantage for the species. Vertebrates have a PVN that control the HPA-Axis. As anything that contributes to the HPA-Axis such as pain, stress, or inflamation increases, the PVN shrinks and it fairly rapidly (evolutionary wise) behaves like a kill switch to the brain. Some pre-Vertebrates can effectively live forever and the mammals that live the longest have different hpa-axis loops. What is wild to realize is that there was probably a creature at some point that wouldn't die from pain until that was connected to this loop.
This isn’t a surprise or shock. The Jaw bone development is highly influenced by sex hormone exposure. I personally look at the jaw bone (followed by the rest of the skull) before the pelvis when guessing the probable sex of a skeleton.
It strikes me that the saying can mean the person is enjoying their profession... Or that nobody else values their passions and they are very unemployed.
The author is writing about the common story of how to grow and scale. Each team gets a product, spinning off teams, etc. What if like most products there is a ramp up period where you need a full team (or teams) and then a few years later the product needs at most a fraction of the people to maintain the product? All of these people are going to "do stuff" because they are paid to do stuff further increasing the maintenance burden. You run head first into the common problem of:
"I have 1000 engineers and I can't get anything done!"
In the worst case the CEO solves this by doing lay offs. Been thinking about this problem for over a decade, making effective engineering organizations that can not only grow, but change shape is difficult, but can also be very rewarding when done successfully.
I don't think it is really like that. Growing a code base at first is very fast, but then slows down entirely due to the human "context window" being limited. So unfortunately, you need more people to maintain a million line code base than a 1000 line one.
You declare things under maintenance mode and you stop work on them other than to solve incidents or implement the postmortem improvements.
If you do this all the time for "finished" bits and instill a culture of "getting to done" in your engineering, it'll just be normal every quarter to move some stuff into maintenance and free up time.
Creating products is very easy. Creating products that generate a profit is very hard. If a company could do so on demand, it would be an infinite money glitch.
I mean it is complex. You have genes like ADCYAP1R1 that are part of the turn on stress -> turn off stress loop. Variants in it lead to higher stress, but lower cortisol so so higher neurogenesis. So the group with the variants associated with PTSD (such as https://www.snpedia.com/index.php/Rs2267735 C;C) may be smarter, but have a lower bar for developing PTSD.
How intellectually serious it was. The treatment of docs was an extension of how they treated engineering in general, which was, seriously and critically. For the most part good engineering took precedence over politics and promotion material and shiny new stuff, unlike what it sounds like you get at a lot of companies.
(disclaimer: very org dependent, as all statements about Amazon are.)
reply