I agree, but I'm curious if anyone has thoughts on why. Like, why is good collaboration in an open-source office software so unrealistic when way more complicated-seeming state synchronization happens in open source and indie games all the time?
I've used dwm for years and recently switched to niri and really, really like it.
I'm with you, that tiling vertically is not useful. Niri aligns better with my innate mental model: just keep adding new panes to the right offscreen that I can scroll through, then I can swipe up and down for more lanes to do collections of different tasks.
I feel much more productive doing read/write tasks, like viewing tickets + code or PDFs + tickets and so-on
This is one of my favorite quotes and I'm glad to see it discussed here.
My favorite interpretation is focusing on the beauty of how even such a mundane thing as a sandwich is a unique experience. Someone made it by-hand, the ingredients have their own backstory in arriving in the present moment, and the taste is greater than the sum of its parts because of all the competing and complementary flavors.
Sandwiches hide in plain sight and even when they aren't great they are unique and will underscore how good your next great one is.
I think the key is that young people get to approach new technology playfully, over-use it, and make mistakes.
I learned lessons as a teenager on Twitter in 2012 that clearly none of the middle-aged people posting constantly on the company Slack ever internalized.
I'm starting to notice AI power users communicating in a shorthand tech-speak I find unintelligible. I genuinely cannot follow the individual points in this article or what the overall arc is.
Is this something that was already part of web dev or is it new?
I regard myself as pro-AI, and I find this article is all over the place. It's just trying to promote their SaaS. It's clear they didn't even read what the LLM generated before posting it, as evidenced by this line:
"99.9% uptime (CloudWatch, Feb to Sep, insert your real number)"
This user also appears to have a Reddit account from 3 years ago where they claim to be a half human cyborg.
It's not the users doing the communication, it's their AIs.
And you, as a human, were not meant to read it - you're supposed to instead feed it back into your own AI agent and have it create a groundbreaking new AI startup based on it. Give it your Cloudflare credentials, sit back, sip a latte, and within an hour or two you'll have a beautiful, fully functional website, complete with fancy fonts, 30 different "No X. No Y. Just Z" taglines, and a $20 monthly subscription, ready to show off to investors. You'll be a highly successful entrepreneur by the end of the week.
> I genuinely cannot follow the individual points in this article or what the overall arc is.
It's just slop. Acknowledge, move on, and find something better to spend your time on.
We're in a weird uncanny valley state of AI writing where it's barely comprehensible, but makes people feel productive so they shove it everywhere, including where it's not needed.
At some point, either:
1. People will realize that this is a waste of time
2. Models will get better and this will be remembered as a blip in history
I think it's deeper than that, once you know software is never done you have to design for constant change.
When clients ask why something takes so long, I explain that I'm not building what you asked for today, I'm building something that will be easy to turn into what you asked for today and possible to turn into whatever you ask for tomorrow.
AI has vastly changed the shape of what that looks like though. There are whole classes of refactoring work that are much cheaper and quicker to do with agents. Integrating a protocol client library say, or swapping one library for another are now potentially hour-long instead of days-long tasks, especially when you have test coverage to back you up (which AI also immensely helps you with).
That’s merely code churn, which is not a good property. What you want in a codebase is something rigid enough to satisfy today’s constraints (including optimizing them) and flexible enough to be modified for some likely future prospects.
So for any current features, cost of fixing bugs and do trivial adjustments should be very low. But working on new things should have a great ROI, especially because what’s existing can be reused as a foundation.
I'm not sure which is worse: human marketer instructing AI specifically to make everyone more diverse and attractive or human marketer instructing AI to do basic marketing and AI has internalized to make everyone more diverse and attractive.
a journalist that has spent years following a specific scene closely, interfacing with the important players, learning different viewpoints, etc. seems like a perfectly reasonable person to have an opinion.
especially if they come with a unique perspective of their own to the topic, like being a professor of history that can highlight interesting parallels to the past.
> I believe that not only do 20% of the people do 80% of the work, but that all this work only achieves its ultimate goals thanks to the <5% of the people who do stuff that someone else is supposed to do, but won't, for reasons which are perfectly legitimate in the organization's view of reality, even though the cumulative effect of such legitimate reasons is the certain death of the whole place.
I don't know that I've ever felt so validated by a HN submission.
I am definitely one of those suckers that does extra work others will not do. It isn't altruistic, I just can't motivate myself to work at all if my tasks are stupid. The problem is that at any sufficiently large organization many of the tasks are stupid because hardly anyone is on the same page.
I have worked on DO-178C (aerospace) and IEC 62304 (medical device) software design documents and they are much narrower in scope.
OP's design document is comprehensive enough to cover much of ground of the full documentation package for regulated software submissions. Basically all that's left is tracing requirements to design to verification method to verification result.
reply