Given that our company prohibits the use of AI tools for programming purposes, things aren't any different to before. We've just found no reason to use said systems given the inconsistent quality of the output.
Readit NewsCM30 commented on Ask HN: With all the AI hype, how are software engineers feeling? · Posted by u/cpt100
CM30 commented on An engineer's perspective on hiring jyn.dev/an-engineers-pers... · Posted by u/pabs3
Honestly, I'd say the best setup would be something like:
1. Live coding/code review/take home test 2. Technical discussion about said test/project (and the company's tech as a whole) 3. General team discussion/culture fit interview
That's because at the end of the day, you really want to filter out the folks that can't do the job as quickly as possible. If someone needs AI to code, can barely use a computer or writes poorly thought out, inefficient code straight out of the last century, it doesn't really matter how charismatic they are or how well they can discuss where they want to be in 5 years.
Way too many companies do things the other way around, and waste far too much time because of it.
Oh, and definitely make sure your questions are specific to the tech you use/field you work in. I still remember having a tough time using React at a certain company because the interview process didn't require any modern JavaScript/SPA knowledge and I'd managed to pass without ever having worked on that sort of web app before.
Similarly, I also remember seeing a WordPress dev agency using Google style leetcode interviews to filter out applicants. Made me wonder how many people they actually managed to hire that way, given that the pay being offered was pretty low, the work wasn't particularly appealing to the people who'd pass those interviews and the requirements to pass the interview in general didn't match up with the job at all.
It's a shitty system, if one side just needs to succeed one time while the other side needs to succeed over and over again.
What really should be done is to disallow proposals, which are kinda the same. Once a mass surveillance proposal like this is defeated, it shouldn't be allowed to be constantly rebranded and reintroduced. We need a firewall in our legislative process that automatically rejects any future attempts at scanning private communications.
I wonder if it'd be possible to fix a lot of these issues by having a constitution with damn near impossibly strict standards for changing it that rely on the entire population agreeing (or close to it)?
So there might be a right to privacy or freedom of speech enshrined in law, and the only way to change it would be for 90+% of the population to agree to change it. That way, it'd only take a minority disagreeing with a bad law to make it impossible to pass said law. Reactionaries and extremists would basically be defanged entirely, since they'd have to get most of their opponents to agree with any changes they propose, not just their own followers.
I was very pissed at this, and when I read this part I couldn't continue, it boiled my blood.
> *EU politicians exempt themselves from this surveillance under "professional secrecy" rules. They get privacy. You and your family do not. Demand fairness.
Yeah this really annoys me, because it appears to show that any pretense that the law applies to everyone equally is disappearing fast.* If it at least affected politicians you could write it off as "idiotic idea that wasn't thought through in the slightest", but here it's clear that they have some idea how stupid and dangerous the law is, and see themselves as worth exempting from it instead.
Cancel culture always scared me, and this blog post sums up exactly why. It seems like pretty much everyone is willing to turn on a 'social pariah' at the drop of a hat, and just about every aspect of your existence gets annihilated as a result of that.
What's more, it feels completely counter productive anyway since the impact of a 'cancellation' on someone is inversely proportionate to how powerful/damage their actions are in general.
Because the most dangerous folks around can simply ignore any efforts at such anyway. Someone like say, Elon Musk doesn't need to care how they act or treat others. They're so wealthy and well-connected that they can just shrug off any callouts or exposes or gossip, and keep causing as much damage as they want.
So the end result is that to a degree, it often feels less like 'punishing' bad behaviour and more like sticking the knife in deeper into someone who might already have a hard time as it is. The billionaire or millionaire ignores the consequences, while some random schmuck sees their life torn to shreds.
It also feels like yet another thing that makes life miserable for people struggling with anxiety, who are neuro diverse, etc. Just takes one person misjudging your intentions/being weirded out by your behaviour, and then it seems the internet mob wants your blood. So now you've got someone who already likely has few friends and supporters and few job prospects getting a scarlet letter above their head and their already difficult situation made even more difficult...
CM30 commented on Face it: you're a crazy person experimental-history.com/... · Posted by u/surprisetalk
To focus on one very small part of this article:
> For instance, shortly after college, I thought I would post a few funny videos on YouTube and, you know, become instantly famous2. I gave up basically right away. I didn’t have the madness necessary to post something every week, let alone every day, nor did it ever occur to me that I might have to fill an entire house with slime, or drive a train into a giant pit, or buy prosthetic legs for 2,000 people.
That's not the hard part.
The hard part is dealing with all the negative comments. My buddy posted a few videos on Tiktok a few weeks ago. Would any of you like to guess how many comments are straight up telling him to kill himself? Here's a hint: whatever you guess, it's likely much lower than the actual number.
As someone who's also posted quite a bit on sites like YouTube over the years, I wouldn't say the amount of negative comments have been that overwhelming. They certainly exist, but they've always been a minority of the comments on my own videos.
But it's definitely dependent on the topic you're posting videos about, the audience you're aiming at and I guess how unlucky you are when it comes to attracting trolls and other troublemakers.
You definitely do need a thick skin though.
To be fair, they could be entirely disjoint sets of people, but I’m surprised by the simultaneous 1) hate for JavaScript[0] and the “modern web” and 2) praise for all the Flash-based websites from the ‘90s–‘00s. To be fair, my first interactions with the web were largely after the “Flash for everything” era, so I might be out-of-the-loop: Did corporate Flash-based homepages get the same reaction then that SPAs do now?
[0] I do strongly dislike JavaScript myself, but specifically from the perspective of language design.
Oh, I remember a lot of developers hated Flash back in the olden days, especially those that focused their efforts on usability or who wanted to advance web standards. Case in point:
https://www.nngroup.com/articles/flash-99-percent-bad/
Heck, I'm sure at least some people celebrated when Adobe pulled support for Flash, just like some people probably would now if the likes of React went away forever.
CM30 commented on Ask HN: Are you hesitant to open source your project because LLMs may steal it? · Posted by u/busymom0
Nah not really. My opinion is that it's better for the user if the code is open sourced, and the availability of LLMs doesn't override that. Why punish the people using the software because AI exists?
CM30 commented on Microsoft is blocking Google Chrome through its family safety feature theverge.com/news/690179/... · Posted by u/chrisjj
Feels like a good case for an antitrust complaint if you ask me.