Sounds nice. I've seen places that have essentially given up email in favor of teams for all communication.

Now add a retention policy of 30 days. Business memory lived in those emails and now it's 50 First Dates

Are there people that would legitimately argue point 1?

If you are only looking at the call site, sure that could be confusing, but if you are looking at the definition as provided in your post, surely anyone that is able understand the concept of a function can see the problem?

I'm not arguing they don't exist, sure they do, but I'm confused as to how you came up with it as a litmus test? Is it that common?

Surely we can agree in a real scenario renaming it (or fixing implementation to match name) is likely appropriate, but to completely miss the error?

Hope this comes across as curiousity, because I am curious about this one from your list in particular.

I've heard the parable, "If you didn't eat breakfast or lunch yesterday, how would you feel around 3pm?", a common response is apparently "but I did eat lunch and breakfast yesterday".

I think it's similar to the case of counterfactuals, hypotheticals, or steelmaning and how well you can handle them. ("Can you accept that there can be a function named multiplyBy5 that does something else instead").

But I think if someone already is comfortable with working with abstractions such as "function" the thing is trivial, so it's a bit of a weird litmus test.

> "Can you accept that there can be a function named multiplyBy5 that does something else instead").

I think anyone that can understand a function can understand this, but one might not be happy accepting it's the case, and endeavor to change it.

I think it can be easy to lose sight of that distinction, and eagerness to fix it can be confused with not accepting it could be, but is also probably wrong.

Agreed, but for some reason the majority of folks don't care about these externalities at all.

I see the externalities and the harm they are and may cause, and at the same time I find it increasingly difficult to avoid using LLMs as there is personal value to be extracted. Further, so many others are using LLMs to pump their productivity numbers (reality may differ and time will tell) its hard to keep up without using LLMs.

Aren't there several papers that indicate that the productivity boost doesn't exist when you start measuring productivity instead of going by feels?

That's an interesting metaphor. Maybe it's because it does match my own experience, but I definitely agree and see it playing out in my own usage.

Obviously the stakes are lower, I still review code before making a PR, but the exhaustion from getting there is similar.

If the learning software isn't actually adaptive, is the testing software?

That is how the teachers described it to us (the testing software being adaptive). As far as I know, we only use the diagnostic software. I wasn't aware of the existence of a learning version of this software.

My child's school is the same, they use the diagnostic software. My question was more toward wondering if the diagnostic is as anemic as the learning version in terms of being adaptive.

That maybe true, value is producing simple solutions as requirements get complex, but will companies realize and value this?

Chicago does have rules for timely show removal on sidewalks. In practice I have never heard of anyone receiving a fine even when the walk in front of a property remains uncleared for weeks on end. There is essentially little to no enforcement.

While I think this is good advice, the fact that it's true feels backward to me. "We have a legal or contractual obligation to be less secure than we otherwise would be." Just seems silly.

Welcome to the reality of most of the "information security" business, which is mostly just compliance by checkbox. A significant proportion of encrypted Internet traffic that is transiting government agencies or major enterprises gets decrypted in flight for inspection, literally inserting a black-box with privileged MITM capabilities into otherwise secure protocols, purely for the purpose of checking a compliance box, and that's not even the worst sin.

There's no insecurity like compliant cybersecurity :)

Could make the same argument for SQLite, the threshold is lower, but similarly you can pretty far with it. Then decide what's next, once you're out growing it.

> AI+Competent Developer paid $300k TC > Competent Developer paid $400k TC >>> AI+Average Developer paid $30k TC >> Average Developer paid $40k TC >>>>> Average Developer paid $200k TC

Huh?

As in the ranking/mental model increasingly being used by management in upper market organizations.

A Coding copilot subscription paired with a competent developer dramatically speeds up product and feature delivery, and also significantly upskills less competent developers.

That said, truly competent developers are few and far between, and the fact that developers in (eg.) Durham or remote are demanding a SF circa 2023 base makes the math to offshore more cost effective - even if the delivered quality is subpar (which isn't neccesarily true), it's good enough to release, and can be refactored at a later date.

What differentiates a "competent" developer from an "average" developer is the learning mindset. Plenty of people on HN kvetch about being forced to learn K8s, Golang, Cloud Primitives, Prompt Engineering, etc or not working in a hub, and then bemoan the job market.

If we are paying you IB Associate level salaries with a fraction of the pedigree and vetting needed to get those roles, upskilling is the least you can do.

We aren't paying mid 6 figure TC for a code monkey - at that point we may as well entirely use AI and an associate at Infosys - we are paying for critical and abstract thinking.

As such, AI in the hands of a truly competent engineer is legitimately transformative.

Tl;dr - Mo' money, Mo' expectations

Those covid years really skewed the market lol