> If losing your job is traumatic, I’d suggest reviewing your relationship with employers and employment in general.
This is a rather clueless and ignorant opinion to have. Your job is what pays your mortgage/rent and your bills, and it's a key factor in where you chose to live. Your job has a fundamental impact in your personal life and your family's experience.
Once you are fired, odds are your life will change radically. And not on your terms.
You should refrain from commenting on things you know nothing about. In occasions such as these, you are clearly both talking out of sheer ignorance and downplaying someone else's traumatic experiences.
No, he's right. One should not pin their happiness to things outside their control. If losing your job is traumatic to you, that is a sign you need to work on improving your detachment from outside factors. Obviously we all have bills to pay and would like to keep a roof over our heads, but being traumatized by losing a job is an extremely unhealthy (and abnormal) response.
I think I kinda forgot that not everyone has stoic framing for their viewpoint with my original post lol. You do an excellent job of saying what I meant without describing things in a way that many (maybe most?) people would misconstrue. Thank you.
That's an interesting parallel. I suspect the point is that entering all relationships with the expectation that all men are pigs carries certain benefits, but then it also likely has costs, such as an inability to form truly deep connections.
> You can search for a new job while employed. Unless you are stuck on an underwater submarine playing hide-and-seek you can always fire off a few inquiries.
Technically you can, but there are recruiters who tag you as unreliable and a mercenary for trying to jump ship. I had the displeasure of interviewing with a hiring manager who seemed to have booked an interview just to criticize the audacity of an applicant for having applied to their open position while still employed. I'm talking about a tone such as presenting gems such as "how can I defend your application to other hiring managers" and "why would we invest in you if you're likely to switch roles in two years".
Except the first one, every job I’ve ever had, I’ve found while holding another job. No one has ever commented about it. And from the other side of the table, it also seems fine to me if a candidate has a job.
I think if you regularly change jobs more than every two years or if 15 years into your career you have never held a job longer than 4 years, that might be a flag go some recruiters/companies.
But the hiring manager in your post sounds highly abnormal. Switching jobs while you have a job is absolutely the norm.
Meh. Just walk out of that interview. Seriously. Ditch that place immediately.
Smart places know that the people they want to hire are the kind of people who already have jobs. A place that doesn't know that is going to hire the kind of people who are currently unemployed. They get people who have fewer options. And they tend to treat them less well, because they have fewer options.
> Or should getting a dual citizenship of a foreign passport, of a nation that later becomes an adversary, become an automatic death sentence?
You seem to be invested in trying to stitch together flimsy arguments based on specious reasoning.
Your so-called victims are Russian agents with Russian nationality which have been engaged directly with a totalitarian regime that is engaged in war across Europe, both cold and hot.
You don't even try to argue for innocence. You know they are agents and guilty, but somehow opt to shift focus to technicalities. Why?
WHere's the proof that they are? Would you be OK is someone accused you of being a russian agent because you criticized the EU too much, and sanction you with no opportunity to defend yourself in court?
>You don't even try to argue for innocence.
Why would I? I don't know if they are innocent, that's why I want a public trial.
>You know they are agents and guilty
I Don't know that. That's just what the EU told us. That's why I want a public trial.
> Would you be OK is someone accused you of being a russian agent because you criticized the EU too much, and sanction you with no opportunity to defend yourself in court?
If I'm ever assigned Russian nationality and collaborate as a Russian observer on russia's sham elections on occupied territories, be my guest. Do you think you'd be wrong?
> Why would I? I don't know if they are innocent, that's why I want a public trial.
Yeah, you have been claiming ignorance on the topic. Willful or not, that is to be determined.
It's weird, however, how you invest so little effort to educate yourself on the topic but still feel compelled such strong opinions on doubts and technicalities and turning blind eye to foreign interference.
It is because, historically, the “enemy of the state” category has been used in expanding manners. The “they are enemies of the state” should not be used as a counter argument for having a fair trial, as far as actual democracy and human rights are involved.
Do you honestly expect us to just turn a blind eye to Russian assets spreading disinformation in a time when Russia is literally waging wars of genocide in Europe? No. Strip his nationality and let him enjoy his Russian passport.
> Jacques BAUD and Xavier MOREAU, Swiss and French nationals respectively, were sanctioned by the EU along with a laundry list of Russian nationals, on the accusation of being russian mouthpieces (...)
If this is the best example you can muster, you don't have much of a case.
They are Russian nationals pushing propaganda for a totalitarian regime which has been engaging in wars of annexation throughout Europe and whose threats of nuclear war against Europe are pushed on almost on a daily basis.
>They are Russian nationals pushing propaganda for a totalitarian regime which has been engaging in wars of annexation throughout Europe and whose threats of nuclear war against Europe are pushed on almost on a daily basis.
Where's the proof beyond reasonable doubt resulting from a trial, that those European citizens have done the things you say?
Or is Euro News propaganda supposed to be the only proof on which EU gets to throw people in jail without trial?
Shouldn't you get a trial where you get a chance to defend yourself before being sanctioned? I swear you people are cheering for 1984 authoritarianism to buttfuck you.
>Nevertheless, it's stupid to even consider the idea that only foreign nationals can be foreign agents.
As long as they are EU citizens, they deserve a fair EU trial and not just get sanctioned because EU says "trust me bro" about people they want to see disappeared.
> Where's the proof beyond reasonable doubt resulting from a trial, that those European citizens have done the things you say?
Are you nuts? Not only does the guy run a company dedicated exclusively to push Kremlin propaganda, he literally presents propaganda program's in Kremlin's RT.
If anything matches the definition of banality in this discussion, it's the puerile assertion that writing code is software development.
It isn't.
Even at FANGs the first thing they say to newjoiners and hiring prospects for entry level positions is that the workload involving writing code amounts to nearly 50% of your total workload.
And now all of a sudden are we expected to believe that optimizing the 50% solves the 100%?
Now we are shifting the goalpost. Who even claimed AI solves 100%. I would even be damned if AI can solve 50% and it would be huge. Personally I don't even think current AI solves even the 50%.
> Now we are shifting the goalpost. Who even claimed AI solves 100%.
I think you lost track of the discussion. I pointed out that in the absolute best case scenario LLMs only focus on tasks that represent a fraction of a software engineer's work.
Then, once you realize that, you will understand that the total gains of optimizing away the time taken on a fraction of a task only buys you a modest improvement on total performance. It can speed up a task, but it does not and cannot possibly eliminate the whole job.
Again, only a fraction of the tasks of a regular software engineering role involves writing code. Some high-profile roles claim their entry level positions at best spend 50% of their time writing code. If LLMs can magically get rid of said 50%,the total speedup is at best 2x speedup in delivery.
You can look at that and think to yourself "hey that's a lot". That is not what's being discussed here. I mean, read the blog post you are commenting on. What's being discussed is that LLMs reduce time spent on a fraction of the software development tasks, but work on other software engineering activities increases as it's no longer blocked by this bottleneck.
As others have wrote, the so-called AI doesn't reduce work: it intensifies it.
> But most importantly, if "code were the easy part", why were top programmers receiving kingly wages for over 20 years?
The vast majority of developers are not paid to write code. They are paid to produce, deploy, and run bug-free and efficient software systems. That does not necessarily require you to type anything at a keyboard.
Ask yourself this: how come the more you progress in seniority the less code you write?
> That first thing do necessarily require you to type on keyboard.
Not exactly. Working on the problem domain to shift the solution domain is a tried and true technique to deliver higher-quality software. This happens away from a keyboard.
> Because they delegate the work. Nothing to do with seniority. CTO of 2 person startup still needs to write code.
No, that's quite wrong. The role of senior engineers is not defined by delegation. No organization pays someone a higher salary for a job description which focuses on shifting work onto everyone else around them.
Systems architecture, drafting and reviewing roadmaps, planning technical directions, tackling high-complexity work. Overall, figuring out what work we can and want to do. That does not involve a keyboard.
Writing code is hard. It is just as hard today as it was 10 years ago. Maybe harder, because stacks have become much more complicated.
Leaving aside the world of a startup that needs a simple CRUD app written, when you write software that is successful, it gets large and complicated. It fills up with features, and is really hard to understand.
Onboarding new people into that codebase takes time. When you don't know the code, you are not very productive, you make mistakes because you don't understand the repercussions of what you are doing. Your code hurts performance, it interferes in subtle ways with other parts of the system. It breaks conventions.
I've worked in companies where it basically takes a year to get really productive, and you need to give people a lot of mentorship and supervision in that first year.
And the second year you are better than your first, and every year you get better, because you understand the code better. As you understand the code better, you get more productive and more valuable to the company.
You have to keep all that code in your head and really understand it well. Not many can do this for large codebases. Code has gotten easier to write, with more ergonomic problems, but understanding a complex code base and being able to add features to it while maintaining performance requirements and quality requirements remains as hard as it was, and being able to do that remains a skill that companies desperately need. AIs, with their limited context window and shaky reasoning ability have not changed this.
Now, what happens with developers who grow to rely on AI to write code? You lose comprehensibility of your own code.
Again, ignoring the simple CRUD app or demo project, if you are working on a million line codebase, after 6 months of having AI write code, you no longer understand large parts of that codebase.
But you are the one responsible for catching the AI bugs! How's that gonna work?
It takes a great effort to read and understand code that someone else wrote. It is much, much easier to understand code you wrote. As you write less and less code, your mind drifts away from that productive zone, and you become less valuable, not more.
Microsoft is a great example of a company that lost the ability to ship features in a timely manner and that meet basic quality checks. Windows is a large, complex codebase. I'm pretty sure I know what got MS into the problem it's in.
And AI is just headshotting tech company after tech company, causing them to miss deadlines and ship buggy features as they de-skill their own developers and lose the ability to stay ontop of the complexity of their code.
Fortunately it's not happening to every tech company, but a good chunk of them are slowly turning into companies staffed by people that don't understand their own codebase.
This is not going to end well for these companies, or for the developers that stop writing code. I am not worried about programming as a profession, as cleaning this mess up is gonna require massive labor, but I am certainly worried about what is happening to companies like Microsoft or Facebook as they go all in on AI. When those companies fail, a lot of people will lose their jobs.
We are already seeing many well known companies really struggle with shipping code on time and meet basic quality requirements.
> Are we seriously pretending that it was always easy now that an LLM can spit out some mediocre code? This seems to me a coping mechanism in response to the industry shifting.
I also add that the skills required to write robust, bug free, efficient, maintainable, and readable code are also the same skills required to make LLMs generate code with those traits. Mediocre developers struggle to write mediocre code, but can easily prompt a LLM to output mediocre code. The output is always mediocre, both in the short run and moreso in the long run.
> I don’t like LeetCode as a post-college SAT, but pass-fail technical screens do filter out candidates who cannot break down and solve problems in the language they will actually use, even with AI.
I strongly disagree. Leetcode-style exercises are detached from the realities of software engineering, and signal ad-hoc preparation over actual competence and skills.
Just because you do not know how to implement a, say, ray search algorithm with optimal complexity that does not mean you cannot implement a background worker, a card with accessibility, a service which securely handle RESTful requests, etc. So why aren't you excluding everyone who is not a ray search experts from your application process? Do you seek to hire competent software engineers, or do you want to have a room of ray search enthusiasts?
Also I doubt that every interviewer making a leetcode interview would necessarily pass it themselves. If you are the interviewer, you can choose the problem, learn the solution, and then profit from the dominant position during the interview.
I have seen colleagues do exactly that: I am fairly sure they would never pass a leetcode interview themselves, and they were not really good coders. But for some reason they really liked making candidates struggle with the one exercise they had learnt by heart.
I have been interviewed (and failed) by people I wish I could have interviewed myself right after. They were very clearly keeping the interview in their comfort zone while feeling superior and making me miserable. I am absolutely convinced that if I had had the chance to invert the roles right at the end and interview them myself, I could have made them miserable just the same.
When you are the interviewer, never forget that you are in a dominant position.
This is a rather clueless and ignorant opinion to have. Your job is what pays your mortgage/rent and your bills, and it's a key factor in where you chose to live. Your job has a fundamental impact in your personal life and your family's experience.
Once you are fired, odds are your life will change radically. And not on your terms.
You should refrain from commenting on things you know nothing about. In occasions such as these, you are clearly both talking out of sheer ignorance and downplaying someone else's traumatic experiences.
reply