riwsky

30 ms·

391.
by riwsky 3y ago
But no one uses ‘using “literally” to mean “figuratively”’ to literally mean ‘using “literally” to mean “figuratively”’, either. Instead they mean ‘using “literally” in the context of a figurative usage’, as you point out—the censure of whi
392.
by riwsky 3y ago
> That's irrelevant to the current meaning of the word. This is called an "etymological fallacy"[1]. Did you read your own link? It explicitly calls out absolute neglect of the etymology as fallacious, as well.
393.
by riwsky 3y ago
I think where we're ending up here is that—while all these points ("tool for the job", "here for the mission") may be true—they are often cited by people who are full of shit, so seeing them in job postings, intervi
394.
by riwsky 3y ago
There is—at which point you need to find candidates primarily by their willingness to work with your tech stack, which means you probably have the wrong tech stack. It's not like leadership at punchcard-dependent firms disagree, and th
395.
by riwsky 3y ago
I was on the naive side, you're not being unfair!
396.
by riwsky 3y ago
> How is "being there for the mission and for the people" better than "being there for money and for tech stack" Tech stacks change; human stacks stay the same. Intellectual honesty isn't going to obsoleted by so
397.
by riwsky 3y ago
cries in HIPAA
398.
by riwsky 3y ago
That’s an inverse correlate, not no correlate
399.
by riwsky 3y ago
I agree that “here for the tech stack” is generally better than “here for the money”, but I’ve just been fortunate enough to work in situations where people were there for the mission and there for the people. It’s also really hard to blame
400.
by riwsky 3y ago
> It’s not the candidate’s job to be interested in your company. As a founder, leader, or even hiring manager it’s your job. It’s my job to do that for the right candidates . Positive working environment, caring about employee growth, l
401.
by riwsky 3y ago
If a candidate is primarily interested in your company because of your particular tech stack, they are probably the wrong candidate. If your company needs to find candidates primarily on the basis of their familiarity with your particular t
402.
by riwsky 3y ago
GLHF = PG13 “FAAFO”
403.
by riwsky 3y ago
“Don’t feel bad […] but also do feel bad” sums up… a lot of engineering growth. Everyone makes mistakes, and we don’t want junior engineers beating themselves up about it. But if you don’t honor the reasons why they’re beating themselves
404.
by riwsky 3y ago
But if we’re already in SQL pedantry mode, we wouldn’t be storing multiple facts in one row to begin with. “Use singular SQL table names so that using a relational db like a document store is less awkward” is a weird argument. (The right an
405.
by riwsky 3y ago
Magnus OP, ruins meta. needs nerf in next patch devs PLZ
406.
by riwsky 3y ago
Who said we’d only give the LLMs read access?
407.
by riwsky 4y ago
We're talking past each other, here. Your article presents a sufficient argument for dismissing the TDD example. Tossing effect size in, your argument still applies for dismissing an ideal study. My point is not that what you said didn
408.
by riwsky 4y ago
If you throw that in, you’d need to throw the TDD example out. A stronger test of your arguments would be, eg, research on productivity impact of generative AIs like copilot. (This would grow your example to match your argument, whereas my
409.
by riwsky 4y ago
The author's overthinking it. He cares about productivity—it's just that the effect sizes are too small in these studies to overcome his prior beliefs.
410.
by riwsky 4y ago
I mean: if you're looking to go straight to theory, the classic textbook is Johann Joseph Fux's, from 300 years ago. But if you're familiar with writing melodies (with some voice leading) over chord blocks, try eliminating th
411.
by riwsky 4y ago
Bravo, dude. The analogy I go to is that of a living versus a dead language, which I got from my dad. He was a professional cellist for years before he said screw it, got an MBA, and went into finance, and I always thought this was some tra
412.
by riwsky 4y ago
I'm with you, don't worry. I meant that standard normatively, not positively, and am in no danger of believing that most mass writings meet it.
413.
by riwsky 4y ago
You misunderstand me: I agree that lazy SEO spammers are poor writers. My beef is with the GP's dismissal of writing slower than the speed of thought—when the best writers pore over these things more , not less. Quoting Thomas Mann,
414.
by riwsky 4y ago
If you don’t have an editor or aren’t rewriting your prose, you may indeed be communicating faster and clearer than most people—but not at the level the author talks about. Going back and hunting for strong, crisp verbs is not some crutch f
415.
by riwsky 4y ago
> The question is: If one LLM assisted engineer can work 10x faster, will companies reduce their engineer staff by 90%? What did you think “replacing SWEs” means?
416.
by riwsky 4y ago
It worked well enough for BERT: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BERT_(language_model)
417.
by riwsky 4y ago
I would be much more comfortable with the Epic Games App Store if they just let me pay to submit my app instead of micropurchase a bunch of loot boxes hoping for a submission crystal.
418.
by riwsky 4y ago
“Softerware Engineer”
419.
by riwsky 4y ago
“Reasonable timelines” are not absolute quantities. They’ve always been an equilibrium of whatever the market can bear. It was simply easier to ignore this before, when things changed much more slowly.
420.
by riwsky 4y ago
but if you add an electron, the watch is already an ion on its own

More ›