Before starting tasks, developers forecast that allowing AI will reduce completion time by 24%. After completing the study, developers estimate that allowing AI reduced completion time by 20%. Surprisingly, we find that allowing AI actually increases completion time by 19%–AI tooling slowed developers down.
The gap and miss is insane.
Nodes only know their neighbors.
When this makes me think of gravity and how that propagades huge distances (if not endlessly until practically ignorable), would that be correct or wrong for this aspect?
What does ‘neighbors’ mean in this context? Is it meant as something more local, constrained, or scoped towards local physical locality?
nice cigar
Video shows them opening the hackaday website and pressing “accept all” on the “share and sell personal data with and to third parties” dialog. 🙈
Just gotta close it off on both ends<===>
(parens for round ends didn’t look good)
I don’t get what your bridge example is supposed to show, nor what normalizing substandard practice has to do with politics or lack thereof.
Depending on where you look there’s plenty of shoddy construction work and cutting corners for cost, big projects are notorious for taking longer and costing more in the end. Construction had more time to develop and be regulated, and has more physical limitations compared to software development. Both, in the end, can be (theoretically) held accountable before court.
is to be able to communicate this effectively with management
Isn’t this politics? Why are you saying politics has no place in engineering principles?
Software engineers are much more replaceable than construction engineers/architects, both in-discipline and with less expertise.
I do my part in what I can influence and control, delivering good and sound products, but it’s obvious depending on individuality doesn’t work across our whole industry.
/edit: The linked article talks about how in-company politics are necessary to coordinate and deliver features. I don’t see that addressed here either? How would you deliver - taking the example from the article - Latex in Markdown on GitHub without politics?
I worked on and created a lot of things, but when thinking ‘cool’, the fractal rendering I did a long time ago popped into my mind as well. It just looks cool, interesting, has variance and experimentation, and is very visual.
The author provided no evidence of it
They’re contextualizing and sourcing it plenty. It’s their impression from their experience, from their years of being in that field. In the later adding of comments at the end they go into different takes as well, reiterating that it’s what they saw or see in [their] big corp[s] [and those he talks to].
You’re saying people are rotating too often - which was one of their points. Not sure if you meant support that point or point it out [assuming they didn’t].
Microsoft actually cut off Israel’s access to Azure…
After months of pressure and trying to silence internal criticism.
I had to look it up to make sure “months of” is correct. Wikipedia has the infos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft#Israeli_military_support 2023-2025, various employees fired
“Microsoft actually cut off Israel’s access to Azure” doesn’t really cover or adequately represent their behavior regarding this topic.
Probably in some AI training data sets. Not that those are particularly good backups.
maybe they also mean Israel/Gaza or the AI push
… Gitlab though; the only difference is you see more “a large premium customer is requesting this” comments!
I love those! /s 😄 It can certainly feel like a pattern, specifically for some tickets.
You can just take the L and say you didn’t see that the function definition that was “added” was just “removed” at the top.
That’s not what happened though.
Changing the indent of the def changes the definition. That’s my whole argument.
I don’t get why you say “of course”, agreeing with my point, but then “it was only the indentation that was changed”.
What I wrote. I wouldn’t want to do AI Thursday and kinda malicious compliance for a prolonged time.
I see, thank you for the clarification. I was quite confused because it seemed to be missing, this one didn’t quite seem correct. If they never even pushed it as a MR then that makes more sense. Then the whole “hasn’t been merged yet” is missing that it hasn’t even been created.
I see, thank you for the clarification. I was quite confused because it seemed to be missing, this one didn’t quite seem correct. If they never even pushed it as a MR then that makes more sense. Then the whole “hasn’t been merged yet” is missing that it hasn’t even been created.
An indentation change is a definition code change. And as I pointed out, it’s a py file, and Python is an indent-significant language.
So you’re using [] as an alternative function call syntax to (), usable with nullable parameters?
What’s the alternative? let x = n is null ? null : math.sqrt(n);?
In principle, I like the idea. I wonder whether something with a question mark would make more sense, because I’m used to alternative null handling with question marks (C#, ??, ?.ToString(), etc). And I would want to see it in practice before coming to an early conclusion on whether to establish as a project principle or not.
math.sqrt?() may imply the function itself may be null. (? ) for math.sqrt(?n)? 🤔
I find [] problematic because it’s an index accessor. So it may be ambiguous between prop or field indexed access and method optional param calls. Dunno how that is in Dart specifically.
The issue, presumably the PR (linked at the top of the issue because of reference).
Look at the code change. It gets inputs and loops over them and seems to do an in-place fixup. But the code indent is wrong, and it even changed the function definition of the unrelated next function. In Python, the indent-logic-significance language.
I assume they briefly showed the code on stage. Even then it should have been obvious to any developer. py file, messy indent, changes unrelated function.
Please correct me if this is the wrong PR.
Did these developers not have experience with AI?
I’m not sure focusing on one aspect to scope a reasonable and doable study automatically makes it “really low effort”.
If they were to test a range of project types, it’d have to be a much bigger study.