sanderjd

27 ms·

601.
by sanderjd 1y ago
Yeah, this is what I really like about AI tools though. They're way better than me at annoying minutia like getting CSS syntax right. I used to dread that kind of thing!
602.
by sanderjd 1y ago
Isn't this also kind of just ... a reddit thing?
603.
by sanderjd 1y ago
Fair enough, but note that they weren't first. I agree that my impression of facebook when I started using it (around '04) I think, was "what is this, like seven php files? I could make this!", but by the time of their
604.
by sanderjd 1y ago
Yep, this version of the argument does resonate.
605.
by sanderjd 1y ago
I honestly don't understand what point this comment is trying to make.
606.
by sanderjd 1y ago
This doesn't resonate with me at all. First of all, all the most successful software products have had very high quality. Google search won because it was good and fast. All the successful web browsers work incredibly well. Ditto the b
607.
by sanderjd 1y ago
Maybe, but I honestly don't buy it. (As I said, I do buy that they deserve some blame.) To me, the web everyone here is nostalgic for was mostly killed by the much larger majority of people whose revealed preference has been for some
608.
by sanderjd 1y ago
Right? I'm sure Google deserves some, maybe a lot, of the blame, but the web has just deteriorated steadily over the past 15 years or so and I really don't think it's all their fault.
609.
by sanderjd 1y ago
I probably should have specified: I didn't list those in the order of what I put most weight on. I agree with you that I more heavily weight the one I wrote as #2. I think you and I probably mostly agree on where things are heading, ex
610.
by sanderjd 1y ago
Yep, well put. But to your last part, this is why I think the worst fears I see from programmers (here and in real life) are unlikely to be a lasting problem. If you're right - and I think you are - that the direction things may be hea
611.
by sanderjd 1y ago
Nah, there's a third kind, which is probably the quieter majority. These are people who find these to be useful but imperfect tools, whose expectations remain realistic, and for whom the continuing progress these tools are making is pl
612.
by sanderjd 1y ago
I've been telling friends and family - and kids interested in going entering this field - this for years (decades actually, at this point), that I don't spend much of my time typing out code. I've found that it's very ha
613.
by sanderjd 1y ago
Communism doesn't exactly have a great reputation for quality either. This is a human problem.
614.
by sanderjd 1y ago
I mean, small companies are higher risk. When you're small, is it better to find customers who are explicitly accepting the real degree of risk, or customers who are underestimating it because of how you presented yourselves to them?
615.
by sanderjd 1y ago
We haven't retreated from that dream. We're doing both things in parallel. But I think it will always be the case that some things are repetitive, even as we continuously expand the frontier of eliminating those things. It's
616.
by sanderjd 1y ago
> But if you are a non-technical CEO and your core business is, say, enterprise SaaS software, you don’t fundamentally understand what the heck is going on Why the hell not? It's not that hard! I think this sounds like laziness, h
617.
by sanderjd 1y ago
Agreed. The noisiest people are those saying "it makes everyone 100x more productive!" and those saying "it's useless, it makes everyone less productive!". But the boring truth is somewhere in between those extr
618.
by sanderjd 1y ago
Yeah. But you aren't disagreeing with what I wrote. I think it's breaking a lot of brains that we have these tools now that are useful but not deterministically useful.
619.
by sanderjd 1y ago
People keep saying this kind of thing, but sorry, it's nonsense. Many of my colleagues that I most admire are benefiting greatly and increasingly from LLM tooling.
620.
by sanderjd 1y ago
Yeah, I mean, this is just the current phase of the hype cycle. It'll settle down. Some of the tools and techniques will have staying power, most won't. If you can figure out which is which and influence others, you'll be in
621.
by sanderjd 1y ago
Yep, agreed. I can no longer relate to people who don't recognize how powerful a tool like Cursor can be. But I also can't relate to people who think they can, today, build fully working software using just AIs, without people who
622.
by sanderjd 1y ago
> A reasonably smart CEO can pretty much understand, in depth, every aspect of their business. But when it comes to tech, which is often the most essential part, they are left grasping, and must rely on the expertise of other people I
623.
by sanderjd 1y ago
None of these other examples are contextual in the same way.
624.
by sanderjd 1y ago
No it doesn't. It's always bad for the actual unit to be implicit.
625.
by sanderjd 1y ago
The improvement would be to specify the units you're working with, as is well known best practice in all science and engineering disciplines.
626.
by sanderjd 1y ago
No, it doesn't make perfect sense. It's a bad practice to leave off units. You just got used to it and seem to have developed pride in being in the in-crowd of people comfortable with an unclear jargon, and that has now blinded yo
627.
by sanderjd 1y ago
That's the whole point. You're failing to communicate clearly. You think it's fine because you're used to it. But it's bad. That you are used to and comfortable with something does not imply that it is not bad.
628.
by sanderjd 1y ago
The articles examples were fine. You (and lots of others here) are being obtuse.
629.
by sanderjd 1y ago
Yeah exactly. Lots of people here can't seem to distinguish between "thing that I'm used to" and "thing that is good practice". But these are totally different. I'm used to and thus comfortable with lots o
630.
by sanderjd 1y ago
That's the point. If you are talking colloquially to someone where you live, sure, whatever, this doesn't matter. But if you are writing something down in some publication for a wide and unpredictable audience, you should use unit

More ›