Agreed, and it's the same in software. Probably the biggest time-sink right now as a tech lead is people going from idea to fully-fleshed-out PR, and then having to go back to have a discussion of "was this the right thing to do". It causes frustration all around (being a "no" much more, and having someone tell you your finished work isn't valuable).
I've been experimenting with aerospace for the last month. Still not sure if I enjoy the tiling aspect. It can get quite janky on occasions when multiple windows open at once. And it lacks some UI affordances (I'd love if you could make the focused app much more prominent). I might try this more limited approach
I wish macos for more serious about window management, it's extremely limited out of the box.
> I get all my conflicts on branches because I rebase before merging
Pretty sure it's the other way around. You're on the branch and rebase it atop current master. If you merge after that, you won't have merge conflicts.
I love this angle as people learn how to interact with LLMs. Doesn't matter what the LLM is, we are still people and I think there are consequences to shoveling rudeness at a thing that talks to you like another person!
Yes, this is one of the most ineffective parts of public trading. It's impossible to say what the leadership here would have done without such _wild_ changes in the surrounding environment. While I understand the argument that in the end it doesn't matter, companies should find the way to succeed regardless, I think it causes a lot of good leadership to be lost, or a lot of bad decisions leading to local minima.
The tokens it uses up clarifying can be saved, and it's often good to write out intentions. For instance, you may be mid-process on cleaning up some architectural pattern, and giving it guidance about where to find docs to follow, etc, are very project-specific.
The conspiracy angle here is not really relevant. Ram is expensive and they're gearing up for M5 studios. Not the illuminati keeping better LLM models out of your hands.
reply