Readit NewsThe problem with it is the same curse that has rotted so much of software culture—the need for a scalable process with high throughput. "We need to run through hundreds of candidates per position, not a half dozen, are you crazy? It doesn't matter if the net result is better, it's the metrics along the way that matter!"
Developers Side: Since developers don't have job security anymore (at least for those who work on common languages like Go, Python, Java and Typescript) they are better off learning and keeping in touch with leetcode and system design questions, looking for new opportunities and interviewing in "batch mode" when looking for a job. The idea is to clear as many interviews as possible using the same concepts, get in and make money asap before you get laid off. No incentive for collaboration or for fulfilling but esoteric stuff like Haskell and Scala. Career security > Job security.
Companies Side: On the other end software companies have less trust in developers staying long term so they want to make the interview process as quick and risk free as possible. In essence they are betting that by perusing 100s of resumes and hiring someone who seemingly knows CS concepts they can get some value out of them before they leave. Standardized tests/vetting > team fit.
TLDR; The art is gone from this job, its become akin to management consulting or investment banking. Quality and UX seems to be regressing across the board as a result.
Why stop there? They should expand it to blockchain, 3d printing, VR and quantum computing to make sure it really tickles the executives' imagination...
IMO they should first focus on being a good cross platform browser that works well on desktop arm before doing anything else.
Plus many people working in tech have specific systems for specific tasks; I use a spec'ed up Windows laptop for heavy lifting and games, and an M1 Air as my main computer.
For those unaware the vast majority of graphic artists start their projects with assets and base images that they themselves don’t create. With generative ai you’re simply going one step further and have another new tool create a more polished version that you can edit to remove extra fingers, etc. It’s simply moving the baseline from 20% done to 60% done, which will result in artists producing even higher fidelity and more detailed art.
For example an artist could generate a bunch of scenes using Sora and create a collage of them for a larger piece of art, something that is prohibitively time consuming right now.
1) https://transcorpint.com/find-us => You can verify yourself at any of these centers across India.
We'll improve the site to directly point customers to appropriate verification centers (thanks for pointing this out)
2) OCI holders are accepted as well. Only your passport and OCI card are required
3) Add funds facility is instantenous. And is available in the app once you've finished the verification. You'll be able to add funds via any card, and instantly receive funds in your Cheq wallet for spending.
Just looking at the locations, it's a 2-3hr cab ride in Mumbai/Kolkata between the airports and the transcorp centers during rush hours, and 1-2hr trip in Delhi. Also credit cards are widely accepted at most places except roadside stalls, etc.
This service would be beneficial to visitors and NRIs (like me) if cross-sold with SIM cards or in currency exchanges at airports, otherwise I fail to see a valid use case due to the sheer inconvenience of having to take such a long cab ride in traffic. Also a lot of international flights land at night so visitors would have to dedicate at least half of next day to go verify their identity.
Running out of money or going out of business also limits your ability to hire in the future.
First responders sometimes apply tourniquets and emergency trauma surgeons sometimes amputate critically injured limbs, even knowing that those have potential or certain downsides for the future of the patient, but aid in survival.
Companies in critical condition or facing threats to their survival may logically do the same thing. If you agree with that, it seems not too far a leap to conclude that taking these same actions while merely under a more moderate threat and wishing to avoid entering a critical condition may also make sense.
IMO hiring be done with a more medium term (6-12 months) mentality based on available runway, and sending out an offer and then rescinding on it usually is a symptom of bad organization where department heads are hiring without CFO buy-in. Maybe just freeze hiring and do layoffs when runway goes below certain level?
- Forcing employees who were hired as remote employees to relocate for RTO
- Rescinding offers
- Layoffs with seemingly little connection to performance
What I'm trying to understand is do companies not think these actions will limit their ability to hire in the future?
Are they:
- Hoping that future candidates have short memories or they can hire new grads who don't have other options?
- Calculating that the job market will stay slack for a long time?
- The C-suite has short time horizons and thus see these problems as someone else's future problems?
- Something else?
Obviously companies will do these sorts of things if faced with existential threats, but the recent trend seems far more widespread than this.
I could imagine that in a bull market candidates would ask for offer acceptance bonuses before quitting their current jobs as a form of assurance. And this issue is even more severe in countries where 2-3 month notice is the norm.
For tiny, throwaway projects, a monolithic .md file is fine. A folder allows more complex projects to use "just enough hierarchy" to provide structure, with index.md as the entry point. Along with top-level universal guidance, it can include an organization guide (easily maintained with the help of LLMs).
In my experience, this works loads better than the "one giant file" method. It lets LLMs/agents add relevant context without wasting tokens on unrelated context, reduces noise/improves response accuracy, and is easier to maintain for both humans and LLMs alike.¹ Ideally with a better name than ".agents", like ".codebots" or ".context".