Iteria

The problem with only hiring people you have met personally is that you miss out on a whole world of people who would be great to work with but had no chance of ever meeting you or your network. I agree that network recruiting is the safest route, but having diversity in your employees is great. If you only hire through your networks you'll see quickly quickly how you only get one kind of person.

I have seem this happen a lot in smaller companies. It's also the story of how I'm typically the sole woman in the department. I by happenstance happen to seed my professional network from college with a lot of men (because I accidentally picked a college that like 80% men). I'm a unicorn because many men's networks include so few women since in IT they tend to be non-traditional and/or generally excluded from younger men's social groups.

I get tapped via my network all the time. But if the company basically only does referral based hiring me and perhaps one other woman is there for the whole engineering department. It's way more balanced at 20%-30% of the department at companies that don't do this. There is some value in shotgun hiring even if it has a higher fail rate than referral hiring. Different kinds of people can bring fresh perspectives and considerations.

If my kid thinks that being less than perfect is a personal failing then I have failed as a parent. That's the point of challenge my kid. To teach her that she doesn't have to be perfect. That's a B is okay. Doing your best is okay. Hell, doing what you feel like is okay as long as you hit that minimum standard which is a C.

I don't intend to make my kid struggle for a B, but As should not be effortless. If my kid isn't putting in the work then I don't think they should get an A. I think it's okay not to have an A. I was always a solid B student even in college and I was and still am okay with that. It made me a chiller kid in college and it gave me space to learn how to expand my capacity because I was so shocked by how "poorly" I did.

I think learning to be happy with a B is an important skill. I don't believe that As should be effortless. If an A is effortless, then that means the kid wasn't in a challenging enough class. In real life the only reward for hard work is more work. Leaning when they want to push for the A and when they want to be content with a B is an important think for them to decide. Perfection should never be the goal. That's how kids burn out at the college level.

This is basically why I believe that effortless As in grade school are a failure state for kids. People tell me that mu standards are too high for my kid, but I cannot express to them that now is the time for my kid to build up the ability to struggle and persevere. It's not that I have high standards. I just think that a perfect score is a sign that the task wasn't hard enough.

I saw way too many kids burn out in college because they'd never seem a grade below an A before, let alone the C they just scored. Since I was used to being pushed to my limit in grade school (not by my mother, but by teachers), I was fully prepared to work hard to barely make a B sometimes.

Because it's inescapable. Web development is by far the most common type of programming work and even if you're a backend developer you tend to have to touch javascript at some point, so everyone knows the pain of javascript's foot guns and javascript has a lot.

The fact that it's mandatory to do your work invokes bitterness in people. For backend, you can kind of switch around until you find a language you like. For frontend, it's javascript or nothing at all.

Javascript as a language is very out of sync with other commonly used languages. Its footguns are very easy to run into. As a result you have a lot of rituals around just not shooting yourself in the foot. The rituals, libraries, and frameworks around avoiding Javascript's foot guns have been very shifting and changing. Of course, because the javascript ecosystem changes far faster than other languages, there are a lot of rakes for developers to step on to add to the naturally existing foot guns.

Javascript as a language probably shouldn't be the sole language of the internet for a variety of reasons. It's a very hateable language because of how easy it is for newbies to make new terrible code and how common it is. Until something like WASM takes off, the downpour of hate for javascript will continue.

I think because of very valid fears about it being a cover for genocide. In the US we have very much done genocide like things like systematically taking women's reproductive organs. That one wasn't even that long ago when that one happened.

Looking at Canada, I'm not sure that assisted suicide won't always be used for genocide. You already have stories of people seeking it for no other reason than being disabled and poor in Canada is so hard they don't want to try anymore.

I dont think that the slow miserable death that is how dying is nowadays is great, but I do think that there's a valid reason people don't like the idea of the government sanctioning suicide when the government is perfectly capable of driving people to it. You make suicide boring and a lot of atrocities will be overlooked. Something being legal and on the surface perfectly okay can allow a bunch of terrible things to happen.

What is funny about the US is that if you can't turn the cog of capitalism, healthcare is free. Being very poor is really baller for treating your horrific medical conditions. So is being old.

I'm an able bodied worker who has to worry about medication to keep at bay my murderous condition only because I can work. If I just quit my job and was willing to live in public housing and all my bullshit, all the stress of treatment would actually go away.

I have no idea why Americans are against expanding Medicare when poor people already get it. Why would they want to deny themselves what they're paying for anyway by virtue of not being able to have it.

I mean there is still the very real threat of niche irrelevance. If enough instances are aligned with corporations, the embrace, extend, extinguish can happen. You really want Independent instances to have at least a 1/3 of the population. Threads is gonna make that extremely tricky when it federates.

I have a 4 year old and I post a lot of pictures of my kid, but like privately. I use an app called tinybeans. You have to be explicitly invited. Grandma gets emails because she can't use apps. everyone is happy. My kid's pictures are hidden away from facebook and family members have to take much more active action to share her photos beyond themselves. And they know that means excommunication from the picture firehose, so they don't. That's how I've managed this. I mean... there's still a bunch of embarrassing stuff in there, but at least the only people who can see it are the people who were traditionally privy to embarrassing kid shit anyway.

I have been using lcs on another account for a small instance and it has been amazing for making the instance feel connected. Thanks!

I feel like this is only true of internal or enterprise software where switching is expensive. For business to consumer, the impact of bugs can cause a company to go under or at least become a zombie. For any type of company, the thread of a competitor is high and can cause your company to stagnant and slowly go under or bleed and rapidly go under.

There is a real impact to a high amount of bugs, it just doesn't happen in one quarter. It happens over years and results in higher stress foe the developers. A stagnating company doesn't hire. It doesn't give raises and slashes benefits. A lot of terrible things happen before a company goes under. We can watch Twitter speed running this.

I wasn't talking about rewriting an existing system either. I'm talking about adding to a system. In order to do that effectively, you need to understand the system as it stands and consider how any requirement could clash or be impossible with the current set of requirements. This is why I bring up the AI needing to pull a set of requirements from the existing code. You cannot add requirements without knowing the requirements that already exist.

I think that hallucination is still a massive issue. I don't even like to call it hallucination because what it really is bad guesses. We should never forget that all any AI does is guess. It doesn't reason about anything or connect information together. AI will hold contradictory positions because of this.

Currently we have no way to make an AI declare that it just doesn't know or even very often ask for more information in order to make a decision because the method of training an AI is literally guess and check.

For that reason, I don't think that AI will ever be the tool for the job when it comes to any kind of requirements gathering. I mean I guess you could, but I always run the risk of being like that lawyer who had made up cases in this result. AI made things up because all it does it make its best guess and it doesn't care I'd that guess is grounded in much of anything at all.