Are they really understanding, or putting out a stream of probabilities?
Are they really understanding, or putting out a stream of probabilities?
The Matrix Profile is honestly one of the most underrated tools in the time series analysis space - it's ridiculously efficient. The killer feature is how it just works for finding motifs and anomalies without having to mess around with window sizes and thresholds like you do with traditional techniques. Solid across domains too, from manufacturing sensor data to ECG analysis to earthquake detection.
But working on our actual codebase with copilot in the IDE (Rider, in my case) is a net negative. It usually does OK when it's suggesting the completion of a single line, but when it decides to generate a whole block it invariably misunderstands the point of the code. I could imagine that getting better if I wrote more descriptive method names or comments, but the killer for me is that it just makes up methods and method signatures, even for objects that are part of publicly documented frameworks/APIs.
I have a hard time separating the why and the what so I document both.
The biggest offender of "documenting the what" is:
Yeah, don't do that. Don't mix a lot of comments into the code. It makes it ugly to read, and the context switching between code and comments is hard.Instead do something like:
Keep the code and comments separate, but stating the what is better than no comments at all, and it does help reduce cognitive load.That's a symptom of bad syntax highlighting, fix it and you're good to go.