sanderjd

11 ms·

271.
by sanderjd 4mo ago
Not really? If those are people I'm close with, I try to express this perspective to them in 1:1s that things that don't end up shipping are not a waste for the reasons I expressed here. And most of those people (because they are
272.
by sanderjd 4mo ago
It's definitely that, which is very valuable, but it's also the optionality value additionally. You had the option to launch the thing, which you wouldn't have had if you had never worked on it at all. It's notoriously
273.
by sanderjd 4mo ago
Yep totally agreed.
274.
by sanderjd 4mo ago
Small successful companies are great, but the hardest thing for me psychologically has been when I'm at a small company that is struggling to convince anyone to use its product. Being a small cog in a giant machine serving lots of user
275.
by sanderjd 4mo ago
> maybe every few years you switch to whatever new tech stack has gotten popular, but it's fundamentally all the same So true! But it's interesting that, from the perspective of someone in the middle, neither near the beginni
276.
by sanderjd 4mo ago
I was exactly this way ... maybe a year or so ago. But honestly I've stopped being excited to type out code in my personal projects anymore either. I've become much more excited by what I can accomplish on my own in a small number
277.
by sanderjd 4mo ago
Yeah, I always bought the premise that it was good for the software, but it didn't work for me as a person, it drained my energy way too fast to spend hours of the day having to be "on" in conversation with another person. In
278.
by sanderjd 4mo ago
Yeah I definitely agree with this. AI has become very useful to me, but it has also definitely automated some of what used to be my favorite parts of my work. I am having some success in working to acquire a taste for different parts of the
279.
by sanderjd 4mo ago
Genuinely funny how often I see both "HN is an AI hate site" and "HN is an AI fanboy site". As dang said in one of these threads recently, opinions are just spilt on this!
280.
by sanderjd 4mo ago
If you read the paragraph, then why did you just ask "why?" instead of expressing your opinion about the explanation given in that paragraph?
281.
by sanderjd 4mo ago
I disagree that it's not meaningfully speeding me up. I'm definitely doing a lot more, and more quickly. But the benefit is definitely smaller at the team and organization level, because we still have all the same serialization
282.
by sanderjd 4mo ago
There is some truth to this, but in practice I'm finding that yes, removing the writing code bottleneck has improved throughput quite a bit. My day (excluding the huge amounts of communication overhead) used to progress as a serial ope
283.
by sanderjd 4mo ago
Yes, it's the "market" argument that I find compelling. That is, not jevons within firms, but rather across them. Is it true that the evidence in tech so far is not encouraging? I was pretty worried about the job market a yea
284.
by sanderjd 4mo ago
Yeah I think it also really depends on what your business is. Many or most of us here (and likely also the author) work in the kinds of tech-forward businesses where competition is fierce and velocity is essentially. But there are many many
285.
by sanderjd 4mo ago
Yep, pendulum swung one way, now swinging back the other. No different than any other hype cycle.
286.
by sanderjd 4mo ago
I think engineers tend to over index on this kind of thing being "waste". You didn't waste that investment, you paid for the option to ship that feature or MVP and the research into the question of whether it made sense to sh
287.
by sanderjd 4mo ago
I still don't really get this point. It's just two different things, spawning processes and running libraries. Seems like you're comparing apples and oranges to me.
288.
by sanderjd 4mo ago
Weaponized against us, the American people, not against any of our geopolitical rivals.
289.
by sanderjd 4mo ago
I don't know Node or PowerShell very well, but I'm not sure what you mean by this with respect to Python.
290.
by sanderjd 4mo ago
I see what you mean now. I agree, a sustained workload of creating many processes very quickly is probably not a great idea. But it's also useful to be able to spawn that process pool (and any number of other use cases like that) effic
291.
by sanderjd 4mo ago
Yeah fair enough.
292.
by sanderjd 4mo ago
Seems like he's the only one that doesn't feel any need to think about this question.
293.
by sanderjd 4mo ago
Absolutely. I'm a heavy embracer of AI and very appreciative of the opportunities it is opening up to do more with the same amount of time and team. But I 100% share all these frustrations. The upshot is that I have both very positive
294.
by sanderjd 4mo ago
But we have figured out how to create electricity without destroying the planet. It's true that we need to actually do that, and that we are to a large degree not doing so at the moment. But that's a problem we already needed to
295.
by sanderjd 4mo ago
I am sympathetic to this point of view. But also: I love reading books. But I'm aware that nobody will pay me to read books. In much the same way, like you, I love writing code. And there was a time when "writing code" was a
296.
by sanderjd 4mo ago
Yep. It has a lot to do with which comment threads you click on. I often read one and think "wow, I can't believe the people here are so negative" and then on another on the same front page at the same time and think "wo
297.
by sanderjd 4mo ago
I think it is error prone to need to iterate file descriptors and set this in order to inherit nothing. Excluding by default would make sense IMO.
298.
by sanderjd 4mo ago
It's not a casual thought. I recognize that there are lots of details, there always are, we're talking about computers :) I don't think it is necessary (or the best implementation) to clone the parent process, in order to mai
299.
by sanderjd 4mo ago
Yes, stipulated. And it it's true that we should have a primitive for spawning a completely new process, because that's what we usually want. I agree that the details are both non trivial and soluble.
300.
by sanderjd 4mo ago
Right. It's not that fork is useless, it's that it's weird that it's the only way to do this thing that it isn't particularly well suited for.

More ›