Contrary to the roid rage induced beliefs of non competitive personal trainer body builders a lot of people don’t go to the gym to see that kind of “progress” they see a professional climber or ultra race runner and call them weak, because they don’t know any better.
> When working with Jupyter, too often you end up with directories strewn with spaghetti-code notebooks, counting up to Untitled12.ipynb or higher. You the notebook author don’t know what’s in these notebooks
This is such a small UX thing but it’s so damn important. The simple fix is to not auto-name notebooks untitled-# when the user clicks new notebook just ask the name straight away, if they can’t name it don’t create it. It might add the smallest amount of friction to the UX, but it’s so damn important.
Also the choice of json as the file format is just plain wrong. Why the project hasn’t just abandoned that entirely and done a json-#python back and forth when writing to file is beyond me. There are extensions that do this, but that’s a really clunky interface, and while I can set it up for myself it’s difficult to force upon others in a corporate environment.
Great to see someone is taking the seemingly small things up, because they mean a world of difference to the overall ecosystem.
> The simple fix is to not auto-name notebooks untitled-# when the user clicks new notebook just ask the name straight away, if they can’t name it don’t create it.
The even simpler fix is to just not name them until the user does. That's the way other programs work. If you create a new document in a word processor, it will say "Untitled" at the top of the window, but it doesn't create a file called untitled.doc on disk until you do "Save as" and choose a filename. It has always irritated me that Jupyter insists on having an on-disk file right from the beginning.
It would be neat if it worked similar to ChatGPT sessions which give themself a name based on the conversation. You could have a small local model that gives a default name automatically.
It would also be great to have a decent search across notebooks in a project so I could quickly find an old function.
> it's usually not because they're idiots who don't know any better or who haven't seen the Truth, it's because it works for them.
The reason we have touch screen phones today is exactly because Apple dared to challenge that assertion. We should not assume that what is out there now is the end goal. Users don’t have a choice they can only buy and use what’s available to them in stores. The second touch screen phones were available the entire market shifted in a short period, but the mantra at the time was just like you have now “physical keyboard are the only way” who knows what could come from people who think outside the box in the future.
Food trucks are also more productive and since the study is a look at the market you’re part of the data that supports the industry increase in productive due to your switch from dine-in to food trucks.
Isn’t it the exact opposite? It you talk to people about something being “twice as warm” or “half as warm” people will assume you are talking about a scale in celcius or something closely related? Because it doesn’t make sense to say “the bedroom is freezing it’s 3/100th colder than the living room!” And no one saying “the bedroom is half as warm as the living room” will be interpreted to be saying that it’s -127 degrees celcius.
No I mean this in a physics sense, not ‘feelings’ sense.
If there is a physical phenomenon that depends on temperature, you can’t use C or F in that calculation unless the temperature parameters somehow cancel out.
So, if y = Tx, twice the temperature means y is twice if x is constant. But only if it’s in Kelvin.
In a “physics sense” there is no such thing as warm or cold those are language constructs not physical properties of materials. In physics there is temperature. You don’t say “the metal bar is 20 warm” you say “temperature is 20 degrees celcius” something having “twice the temperature” isn’t the same as being twice as warm or twice as cold.
You are using language and you seem to make an equivalence of temperature to warm/cold which doesn’t work. Now your saying that it only makes sense to use kelvin because it’s the only scale that doubles when you double it (which is actually also false they all do that). When in fact the concept of “twice as warm” is a fuzzy language construct which matches better to celcius. Which isn’t surprising as both the language and celcius scale are designed around our subjective experience.
That mentality is exactly what leads to the problem. You want to hold everyone organization accountable for every perceived failing which leads them to optimize towards a state where they can justify existence but do as little as possible to minimize the potential for any perceived failing.
I honestly didn’t even know Skype was still alive I’m surprised it’s around to kill. MS Teams is so cemented in my own any anyone I knows world that it’s funny to think back on the days where Skype was here and everyone hated it.
> that knowing SQL schema doesn't help the attacker.
Knowing the name of the service helps the attacker, knowing the name of government officials working at city hall helps attackers, knowing the legal description of what a parking ticket is helps attackers. If you are sued and decide you want to hack the government knowing the details of the suit against you helps you in your attack.
The barrier is not “any helpful information must be censored” the barrier is “don’t disclose passwords or code that would divulge backdoors” a schema cannot be that.
> but I have not seen many companies that still hire programmers in the most narrow sense, that only focus on writing code.
So you yourself have already seen the demise of the programmer so why are you arguing against it? Software development isn’t going away. But just like we no longer have tweeners in animation, we’ll soon no longer have programmers in software development. Then soon there after we won’t have “front-enders” and “back-ended” the term “full stack” will lose meaning and at the end what we call a software developer will be more akin to what you today call a business analyst than a programmer.
I'm arguing against it with the other two arguments you didn't address.
Yes, AI will change the role of software engineers - and it's my personal belief that in the next couple of years this change will be smaller than many people think. But no, AI will not replace engineers like Mark Zuckerberg thinks.
Why not? Because AI makes too many mistakes and AI is not going to support and maintain your code.
