[-] [email protected] 76 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

This isn’t a lunatic. This is someone trying to make a point about companies thinking they can use AI to replace devs. Poe’s Law is on heavy display here in these comments.

Whether or not you have experienced it, there is currently a trend both in recruiting and in millionaire leadership dialogue toward dropping devs for AI codegen. CEOs that don’t understand how anything works (eg Salesforce) think you can just not hire devs because Google’s inflated AI stats that included basic autocomplete in their full AI codegen numbers indicate AI can code. Boards believe generative AI is capable of things it won’t be able to touch for decades. I have to deal with idiotic AI questions from Fortune 500 companies every fucking week.

From a hiring perspective, it’s becoming incredibly difficult to weed out AI bullshit. For every one qualified candidate I get, I’ve had to drop five or more in a fucking tech screen because, while codegen has given them enough to pass a basic hiring screen that used to weed out a lot more, there’s zero fucking ability to code without Copilot or critical understanding of the code it generates. When I was starting out, the same problem existed at university but got filtered out after graduation fairly quickly.

The non lunatic here is extending that to other disciplines because it’s a natural next question. He’s not exactly applying a slippery slope; it’s sort of there underneath.

Edit: valid criticism of the post is that you have to have a degree to code. That’s bullshit. After my first degree, I went back for CS and dropped out because it was a waste of time. It limited my job pool initially; this far into my career it really does nothing. I’ve hired some solid bootcamp devs. I’ve seen shitty bootcamp devs. I’ve also seen a bunch of CS masters who have no fucking clue how to ship production code but can wax poetic about algorithm design. Since I don’t run an R&D department, that doesn’t matter 95% of the time.

[-] [email protected] 111 points 6 months ago

The study talks to 16 Mastodon admins who got to say what they thought Mastodon did. It’s not really a study, it’s just a survey. Being posted here is just confirmation bias. For Mastodon to increase citizen empowerment, there has to be something measured and a control group that isn’t on Mastodon.

From the abstract

In this paper, following a pre-study survey, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 16 Mastodon instance administrators, including those who host instances to support marginalised and stigmatised communities

You really have to read beyond the headline. This isn’t Reddit.

[-] [email protected] 84 points 9 months ago

Other answers have only called out rotating the secret which is how you fix this specific failure. After you’ve rotated, delete the key from the repo because secrets don’t belong in repos. Next look at something like git-secrets or gitleaks to use as a local pre-commit hook to help prevent future failures. You’re human and you’re going to make mistakes; plan for them.

Another good habit to be in is to only access secrets from environment variables. I personally use direnv whose configuration file is globally ignored via the core.excludesfile.

You can add other strategies for good defense-in-depth such as a pre-receive hook checking for secrets to ensure no one can push them (eg they didn’t install hooks).

[-] [email protected] 72 points 10 months ago

This is a common problem. Same thing happens with AWS outages too. Business people get to manually flip the switches here. It’s completely divorced from proper monitoring. An internal alert triggers, engineers start looking at it, and only when someone approves publishing the outage does it actually appear on the status page. Outages for places like GitHub and AWS are tied to SLAs that are tied to payouts or discounts for huge customers so there’s an immense incentive to not declare an outage even though everything is on fire. I have yelled at AWS, GitHub, Azure, and a few smaller vendors for this exact bullshit. One time we had a Textract outage for over six hours before AWS finally decided to declare one. We were fucking screaming at our TAM by the end because no one in our collective networks could use it but they refused to declare an outage.

[-] [email protected] 56 points 1 year ago

It’s P2W. There’s absolutely no way their grind example is actually achievable by a casual player.

[-] [email protected] 61 points 1 year ago

Here is what I get when I complete the search.

And here’s what I get when I intentionally change the units. Notice the color difference?

[-] [email protected] 91 points 1 year ago

Absolutes in programming tend to lead to bad designs. This is more a “I’m gonna stir up some shit on Twitter” post than real wisdom.

  • No microservices usually leads to bloated, tightly coupled logic that ignores business domains
  • No monoliths usually leads to sprawling microservice deployments with tightly coupled dependencies and flavor-of-the-week new ones
  • No Kubernetes usually leads to VPS pets or crazy obstacle courses trying to get SSL termination without a million fucking dependencies in a cloud container orchestration system that isn’t as good as Kubernetes
  • All Kubernetes usually leads to huge SRE costs for a tiny app

The same shit happened last summer when AWS came out with their “we dropped microservices for a monolith and look at our speed increase” article which ignored good design principles. Sometimes you should split things over business domains so you can deploy and code independently. Sometimes Kubernetes is the best way to handle your scale needs. The stories we normally read are about people doing it wrong (eg AWS making a bunch of microservices inside a domain sending fucking gigs of data between what should have been functions in a single service). Inexperienced folks don’t always know when to move from their minimum viable solution to something that can scale. That doesn’t mean you remove these things, it means you train on when you need them.

Should we abandon design patterns because singletons or flywheels aren’t the correct solution all of the time?

[-] [email protected] 65 points 1 year ago

That’s how little they got‽ Holy shit. That’s the steal of the fucking century for all that content. Reddit clearly puts the same stock in its negotiators as it does its 3rd party ecosystem. Anyone who values them more than maybe 2x this price for their IPO is a fucking idiot. Forget Trump’s Art of the Deal. spez needs to write a book.

[-] [email protected] 92 points 2 years ago

This is known as revenge bedtime procrastination and capitalism plays a huge role in it.

[-] [email protected] 89 points 2 years ago

Nintendo does not sell hardware at a loss and, IIRC, has done so since the Wii. It was a huge deal back when they said they were going to make a profit off the hardware. Given how abysmally the Wii U did, I’m struggling to find coverage of that from 15yr ago that I only vaguely remember. However, that’s been a major point from Nintendo since the Wii, so it’s ridiculous that Epic wouldn’t know that and is clearly just an attack on Google (please don’t read that as me supporting Google or Epic).

[-] [email protected] 59 points 2 years ago

This is more a Chromium vulnerability than a GPU vulnerability. Firefox and Safari aren’t vulnerable.

[-] [email protected] 58 points 2 years ago

This is a driving factor in a majority of Star Trek fiction.

view more: ‹ prev next ›

thesmokingman

0 post score
0 comment score
joined 2 years ago