Maybe not neccesarily exactly ten years, but you couldn't be both a junior and a senior so far as the roles have meaning. A senior is supposed to know how to function within the company and obstinately perform certain roles in their certain way, but a junior is supposed to come into the company fresh and try to simplify the work with their eyes that are not trained to do it the senior's way. Neither person is wrong but the roles need to be in opposition.
That's why it's so annoying to read about companies who think they can replace junior workers with AI. While imagining they're living in the future, they're not thinking about the future at all.
Correct. It won't catch 100% of possible bugs, but it will catch most.
The kind of bugs that are easiest to write in a formatter is dropping a bit of syntax on the floor and forgetting to include it in the output, and the sanity check will catch those.
It's also definitely possible to miss some whitespace that's necessary for things like identifier separation, but... <shrug> it's a sanity check, not a proof of correctness.
I’m not, actually. I think we all have inner voices if we listen, and it’s possible that different societies have different characteristics. One of them could be whether the environment is on the individual’s side or not. A more compatible inner voice could do better in either situation.
Probably has more to do with how they regard hallucinations. In some cultures they're regarded as possibly mystical and a good thing, in other cultures they're regarded as strictly a sign of a malfunctioning brain which is of course bad. Even a corpse can create different feelings based on context and beliefs-- ie a corpse at a funeral is a somber memorial, a corpse lying in the street is sad and worrying.
I didn’t say inner voices are scientifically correct. I think they’re an adaptation. Maybe if India had more functioning depressives it wouldn’t be in that situation, who knows?
There's been several studies. The same phenomenon happens in the US among a subset of people who frame the voices in terms of older cultural narratives like, e.g., hearing the dead (i.e. traditional Western spiritualism), or with immigrants who came of age overseas. The critical elements seem to be 1) how the culture primes the person to frame the hallucinations, and 2) how family, friends, and other community members receive the claims. If both are positive or at least benign, it's less likely for the symptoms to become debilitating. Stress has a well known and very strong effect on progression of the disease. If you have angry, scary, violent voices, or when the community around you reaffirms the negativity and pathological nature of the voices, your stress levels go up tremendously.
The priming effect is huge, I think. American culture loves conspiracy theories, and conspiracy figures prominently in the experiences of American sufferers. Likewise for tropes like nefarious government surveillance, not to mention how both are infused with literal and tacit threats of extreme violence, or demands of violent responses. That's just not true to the same degree, if at all, most other places, with notable exceptions being other Anglo countries, which share similar cultural histories, not to mention sharing to a much greater degree Hollywood media which express and popularize these kinds of stories.
Contrary to popular belief not all delusions and hallucinations are horrifying. Similarly, not all of them compel people to do bad things. There are cases of schizophrenics who had voices and hallucinations telling them to be good to people and go out of their way to help strangers. There's definitely all sorts though it's not like one or the other or that a person only has one type.
If I'm very tired (after I had insomnia for two or so days) I have mild hallucinations, and they're pretty boring/benign. But mine are more auditory than visual.
This isn't unusual when people are sleep deprived though. I think lots of people just don't realise they are hallucinating in that state
This writing was effective, clear, to the point, and revealed a human perspective. I can sense the frustrated professional going behind the curtain and tidying up his reservations about dealing with his clients.
It was refreshing to read in exactly the way AI slop isn’t.
I don’t know if he was captured and made to produce pro-Apple content. He does that on his own. But reading that did make me question why he wrote it. Why does he care?
I don't think "made to" but as someone who followed his blog for many years, there was a before he did a special episode of his podcast with an apple VP and after. And clearly after he had a different perspective. It's IMO just not hard to imagine why. Every giant company has a procedure on how to manage journalists and every ex-journalist turned mouthpiece thinks they're too savvy for that.
reply