Hasu
Is that a personal attack? Is that against the guidelines?
I'm not interested in being a part of a community that finds my previous post objectionable. What I said was true and needed to be said. It wasn't kind, but the OP did not deserve or need kindness, he needs a reality check.
> It should be clear that this kind of conduct is not acceptable
It isn't.
Not my site, so please ban my account.
> While browsing YouTube, an AI-generated video appeared and I reflexively told my wife, “That’s AI—skip it.”
> Yet I’m using AI-created illustrations for my graphic novel, fully aware of copyright and legal debates.
You are a massive hypocrite, and it seems like you're a scammer and a thief, too.
If you work for a company like this, you should jump ship.
Mileage varies for different people, of course. But dopamine is dopamine and addiction is addiction and it's neither kind nor fair to tell someone else that their addiction isn't real because there's no change in their blood chemistry.
It's mostly a cult of personality relationship, and you're deep in it with your belief that Zuckerberg is an unusually capable operator.
Given this paragraph suggests you haven't changed browsers in over 15 years, you should probably give it a try sometime and see if what you think is true still is true.
(If you don't want to do your homework, it is not true. A not-very-technical person could change browsers three times between now and dinner and have no issues)
I'm sure you also believe that she was asking for it because she was wearing a short skirt and your dad was right to hit you because you wouldn't shut up.
People who can't do simple addition and multiplication without a calculator (12*30 or 23 + 49) are absolutely at a disadvantage in many circumstances in real life and I don't see how you could think this isn't true. You can't work as a cashier without this skill. You can't play board games. You can't calculate tips or figure out how much you're about to spend at the grocery store. You could pull out your phone and use a calculator in all these situations, but people don't.
> I took a small company that was living contract to contract into a world where they started making millions in annual recurring revenue.
> There's no secret, magic bullet. All I did was make sure we were delivering progress at a regular cadence. Kept communication channels open. And tried to, but ultimately failed at, training the sales team to stop with the secret deadline negotiation
This is what I call hitting deadlines.
There is no value equation for "the theories and knowledge" that developers build in their heads. Value in software happens when customers pay for software. That's how business works. It happens to be true that developers need to build theories and knowledge in their heads, but that isn't unique to software engineering and doesn't prevent deadlines from being effective.
> "It gets done when it gets done," is a glib way of saying that progress is more important than deadlines. The idea that systems take time and what's important is that people know where we're at and where we're heading more than threatening punishment for not delivering what we estimated at an agreed upon time.
I understand the argument, having heard it from teammates ten thousand times in my career. I'm somewhat sympathetic to it, but it is not a full picture of the software business. A business that fully adopts such a strategy has no long-term plan and can't make promises to customers. That can work if you lucked into all the money in the world (Google), but most of us are not so lucky and need to deliver to customers within reasonable timeframes or the customers go to someone else who can.
I get that estimation can be hard, conversations about scope can be hard, and managing expectations can be hard. I don't care. If you still have a job in this industry you are extremely well compensated to overcome those difficulties.
If you cannot forecast whether it can be built in three weeks and then deliver against that forecast, you aren't doing your job.
> Wasn't agile created to solve this BS?
Agile sets regular deadlines for shipping to customers, that is literally the core idea. Instead of one big deadline 6 months from now, you have a small deadline every two weeks for the next 6 months. It's still a deadline.
There are 2.6 million seconds in a month. You are claiming to have sent hundreds of requests per second to AI.
It says here that it'll only be another 6 months!
George W. Bush won the popular vote in 2004. There are several other factual errors in your comment that are ruinous for your conclusions.
1) The story of stone soup is the story of how some grifters got a free meal. I don't think it's moral instruction, or an example to be learned from, unless you are a grifter.
2) In the stone soup example and in cases like Wikipedia, the soup is freely shared with everyone, regardless of their contributions. Is AI like that, or in the AI stone soup story, are the travelers charging everyone for a bowl of soup? Doesn't that change the story quite a bit?
Tidal pays them more.
Bandcamp pays them even more and lets them run their own storefront.
This quote from Uncle Bob is shameful, considering that he has made 100% of his career on writing English, not code.
I once walked out of a war room (at a much smaller company that I wouldn't be at for much longer) that had devolved into finger-pointing and blame games. Half an hour later, my boss came out to find out what I was doing and I pointed at my screen and said, "This. This is what's wrong. Ship my fix and we're done here." The entire war room came to my desk to see and discuss the fix, which we shipped, which solved the issue.
At my next job, I had to hold back laughter when the VP of Engineering, who was pushing mob programming, said, "Think about it. When we have an incident, when something is really important, what do we do? We all get in a room together. No one leaves the war room to go solve the incident on their own."
This is just a chain of management failures. I hope Jerry got a new job with a better boss.
This isn't to say Jerry didn't screw up. He did. But this method of dealing with it is about the manager's authority over the employee, not the business outcome. When I was a team lead, I had an issue with my direct reports not having empathy for the internal stakeholders we were building for. I fixed that with meetings directly between my team and the stakeholders where we all came to an understanding of each others' needs and constraints. But that requires effort and awkward conversations and being a human being. It's a lot easier to just yell at Jerry.
It's a good bet for me, because if I lose, dollars won't be worth anything anyway.
No one told you to feel rage.
> Throw in the complete dismisal that anyone not scared of this is ignorant, shuts down discussion.
Weird, there are a lot of comments doing discussion in reply to the parent comment. It hasn't been shut down at all! You read those words and disagreed with them, and wrote your own words in response. You're doing the discussion you're claiming is being shut down! What are you even talking about?
I think if they could find a way to make their software good, instead of bad, like it increasingly is, that would be a good use of that money.
Caesar's civil war was illegal under the laws of the Roman Republic. Caesar successfully took power, so there was no one to enforce those laws, but he did break them, and ultimately, the Republic. As far as I know Caesar never even bothered legitimizing his war or self-pardoning - he didn't need to, he won and the Senate made him dictator for life.
> So while the exact details of "Title 10" and "Posse Comitatus" are very important to an army before they cross the Rubicon - if they do cross the Rubicon the law will suddenly turn out to be far more flexible than anyone expected, and it'll turn out their actions were legal after all.
This is very important: only if they win will their illegal actions go without punishment, and winning is not guaranteed.
There is a reason we generally prefer the rule of law to the rule of power.
It got requests from both the Trump administration and the Biden campaign. Joe Biden was not President in 2020. Donald Trump was still running the government that was "censoring" social media.
I don't know why this never comes up when people talk about the Twitter Files. .