I also get what I would describe as "near" panic attacks when I smoke (about once every two weeks, with friends). I realised that after about 15 minutes or so it cools down and I feel, perhaps, more relaxed than before I started. Purely anecdotal but I feel you. Maybe a bit of cooldown and good company helps with the paranoia.
I see. So AI is reducing the number of jobs in the tech sector because fewer people are needed to ship stuff (thanks to AI). And since fewer people are needed across the tech sector then we don't need things like Jira anymore because it can all be done on post-its or Google sheets or something, so there's no need for Atlassian accounts anymore. And Atlassian can now do more with less thanks to AI.
I can't wait for Atlassian physical sticky-notes to take over.
Imagine doing AI development in waterfall. You spend weeks writing your prompt, when you think you have it perfect, only then do you submit it to the AI. Then you wait a week or so, and see what it produced, expecting it to be exactly what you wrote.
Or, do you tell it the basic functionality you want, test it out, then add feature after feature that you want, sometimes dropping them and sometimes adding new ones that you thought of as your worked.
I don’t think that’s what it would look like at all. The first stages would be cheap - mostly requirements gathering and research, but a bit more focus on that. A bit more time would be spent up front, but then you’d see multiple proposals being built, from
that multiple plans being built, and finally multiple implementations to choose from. You might see A/B testing of multiple implementations or even products, and then a decision on which to pursue. You could move in multiple dimensions concurrently.
I’m not sure this is agile. I’m not sure it’s a waterfall.
We’ve got bounds on our infinite typing monkeys, but they increase every day
> Or, do you tell it the basic functionality you want, test it out, then add feature after feature that you want, sometimes dropping them and sometimes adding new ones that you thought of as your worked
the problem with this is long term maintainability. it works - and the engineer understands how it works - but a) the AI does not prioritize cleanup/organization/naming, and b) there's a blind spot/boiling frog type of phenomenon that can prevent the engineer from spotting the growing problem. the codebase becomes recognizable only to them. the engineer sees all features working, all bugs fixed, 90% test coverage, and submits it for a PR.
the engineer tasked with reviewing the PR will treat it as slop.
The vast majority of "AI is changing everything!" takes I read say more about people's fundamental misunderstandings of the software development lifecycle (the real one that companies actually do, not the one that people think they do or what companies say they do) than about anything AI is going to change about software eng.
If anything, their solving the complete wrong problems and being blind to the actual problems is probably a reason AI won't actually result in any real, top-level appreciable gains in shipping speed.
Waterfall came out when hardware and software had to be developed together, and appealed to traditional Engineering practitioners. You are right though, when the hardware constraints went away, software (more code) was cheaper and easier to ship in increments and iterate. But feature-rich products were still difficult to ship - and you had to pick and choose what things to spend your time on.
The SaaS-pocalypse is occurring versus investors don’t believe that to be true anymore.
I think they will still be wrong because ultimately people want people (particularly experts) to be held accountable for things - shipping high stakes software, running company ERPs/CRMs, and more.
Honestly posts like theirs are just indicative of someone who never understood their job/role.
People throw out terms like agile or waterfall, shit on agile etc. probably because they work at some worse than mediocre place let alone ever done their own thing.
Glad you mentioned Google Sheets. I moved my personal task tracking from Trello to Notion to Sheets. Sheets has been the best for me. Infinite customizability, fast, lean.
I'm curious how you use Sheets as a Trello-like replacement. I use Trello from time to time but my most recent project is using actual Post-It notes stuck to my monitor, wall etc.
If Sheets works (I love simplicity) then I'll give it a go but I checked and I can't find any templates for Kanban or such.
when agile was fairly new I worked with remote developers that had 3 locations.
My specialty is software requirements and my team was brought in to do the product management. The developers had read somewhere if you were using a database to do requirements then you were doing agile wrong.
They wanted me to write post it notes in triplicate, then fedex them to all their offices.
I'm pretty confident though with no solid evidence if you lower the first number by 1 you are describing the vast majority of employed programmers in the world.
I don't think it's completely right. Jira is a task manager, and the task throughput supposedly remains the same, just fewer assignees.
I think these companies should be pivoting to something where tasks/issues are the places you write the prompts for the AI, or augment the prompts that devs use. It's a big shift though.
In my last jobs Jira was used, and despised by all except product managers. It just becomes a mess.
In my startup (now 20 people), we use Trello. Outsiders look at us funny. I respond that its the same company after all...
Possibly dumb question: why not just get a previous generation MacBook Air for a similar price? Even a refurb one. I really don't understand who this is for, apart from children perhaps (but still just get a bloody MacBook Air)
For people, new to the Mac (which make up half of all Mac sales), who don't go hunting for refurbs or want to buy used gear, and where a $1099 price point is cost prohibitive.
Basically every regular computer user who shops at Amazon or Costco.
+1 but I don't see that as a guilty displeasure to be honest. I also formed most of my musical taste in the 90s and to this day Dirt, Sap and Jar of Flies sound just as good as they did back in the day.
Oh bless, caring about civilians! How about the more than 16,000 children murdered and about 4000 child amputees. Yes, it's super reassuring that you care about civilians.
It's the Iranian people who will be the final judge of how much civilian death is acceptable.
If so many Iranian civilians die that this new revolution fails, then not only will regular Iranians continue to suffer, but all the deaths in the protests and these bombings will have been completely pointless.
If few enough Iranians are affected that they persist, then it may well be worth it.
I can't help but think that all this shit is because Netanyahu really wants to put off more court hearings on his lame ass corruption charges. I really can't wait for him and his cronies (in Israel, and the West) to be brought to justice.
Without having to wait for the history books to do their thing.
His court appearance are continuing as scheduled, twice a week, for the last year. except for some specific incidents where he had to leave of cancel due to running a state.
No matter what you think, there is no way for him to avoid these hearings
Great, for those minor charges of accepting what, something like 150k Eur in gifts. As opposed to life in prison for genocide, which he clearly and absolutely deserves.
Go ahead, defend one of the most despicable humans alive this very day. I can't imagine what's going on in your mind. Maybe a combination of Attent and koolaid?
While Netanyahu definitely deserves that, don't expect anything to change for the better in Israeli foreign policy if he gets deposed and tried. Israeli politicians have become radicalized to a level that is hard to imagine from a European or US perspective.
Even the leader of the "left wing" opposition has recently explicitly stated that Israel was gifted the entire region from the Euphrates to the Nile by God, so they would have a right to own the entire region, but that this must be balanced by security concerns and tactical realities. This happened in response to the US ambassador's explicit public remarks in the Tucker Carlson interview that also asserted Israel's God-given right to the entire region. Note that this region, from the Euphrates to the Nile, includes about half of Irak, parts of Syria, most of Lebanon, parts of Saudi Arabia, and of Egypt.
I know Zionism as the idea that Jewish people have the right to self-determination.
Do you:
1 - Think that it is something different?
2 - Think that it is, but Jewish people specifically do not have it? (I believe this is racist)
3 - Think that no people have it?
4 - Something else?
If you think that Jewish people have it but just not in Palestine, where in the world do you think they should have had it?
You're wrong on the definition of zionism.
Zionism is a European nationalist movement that uses the assumption there is a consensual concept of "homogeneous jewish people" who have the right to self-determination to justify Palestine's colonization.
Anti-zionism is being against the colonization of Palestine and being against nationalism and supremacism.
Anti-semitism is hating someone because of the are jew.
So are the vast majority of Israelis, coming from Arab countries, not Zionist? What is your connection with the Zionist movement that let's you define it?
When is a migration of people to a land isn't colonization, in your book?
> So are the vast majority of Israelis, coming from Arab countries, not Zionist?
Yes, they are. Being a European movement doesn't mean non-european cannot be zionist.
Fascism is also a European movement as it emerged in Italy.
> When is a migration of people to a land isn't colonization
When there are no settlements, no oppression of indigenous people, no land exploitation, no discrimination law made by the colonizer.
It's not "in my book", it's in every books not made by a colonizer.
If self-determination means an enthnostate then no people has that right. If every ethnic group had its own state in which it was guaranteed supremacy, the world would be a complete mess. It doesn't work. We are seeing in Israel/Palestine a thoroughly worked out example of why it doesn't work, and what the consequences are when you try to make it work.
I don't see how Israel/Palestine is any kind of evidence that ethnostates can't work. There are Palestinians that have been peacefully living in Israel just fine for decades. There are unique historical reasons why there's so much conflict in this region.
> Palestinians that have been peacefully living in Israel just fine for decades.
when you write something like this ask yourself if were Palestinian if you would be happy if you son or daughter said they are moving to Israel to live there. if you answer Yes, we good. but of course no way you’d ever say yes…
How is ethnicity related? Judaism isn't an ethnicity, and there are Jews in Israel from Poland, from Ethiopia and from India. In terms of ethnicity, Israel is probably one of the most diverse places on Earth.
Judaism is a religion, but Jewish identity encompasses ethnicity.
And Judaism is a religion founded on the idea of a "chosen people" formed from the "seed of Israel" after all. And the Tanakh says this chosen people is entitled to the Palestine region. So we can easily see how this is a mythos made of an ethnostate, when interpreted through an extremist (Zionist) lens.
The Jewish people already loving in Palestine had a right to live there.
The problem is when you try to forcefully displace an entire civilian population to make way for a colonial movement.
In the same way I, as a Finn, would not have the right to take over any region in the Urals and kick out the people who live there, the Zionists had no right to do just that in Palestine since over a hundred years ago.
No one is arguing in support of displacing a population. However, it seems like you believe that everyone should just stay where there are, and no population should ever migrate to any place. That's both naive and simply was never the case in the history of human kind. People migrate, for thousands or reasons, and almost no one leaving on a land on this planet have lived there since the beginning of times.
A piece of land isn't yours because you were born there or your grandpa did. There's one Earth in we need to share it. No one can deny the connection of Jews to the land of Israel, in a same way that no one can deny the connection of Palestinians to the same place. The Palestinians Arab don't need to move back to the Arab Pennisula, where they came from, and the Israelis don't need to move back to Poland, Yemen, Russia, Morocco, you name it. "The times they are a-changin'".
Zionism is the support of the Israeli colonial project. Jewish people have a right to self-determination regardless of Israel's existence; Israel's existence does not determine the right of self-determination for all jews. As such, the two things are not the same.
Zionism, then, is just support for a specific state (Israel), and support or lack or support for a state given its actions (colonial oppression) is not bigotry. Disliking a genocidal ethnostate does not influence in any way how you feel about the Jewish people as an ethnic and religious group. As such, anti-zionism and anti-semitism are not the same.
Jews don’t have a right to an ethnostate. No one does. Jews have a right to live within any country in the world, but not run an apartheid government or commit genocide.
> I know Zionism as the idea that Jewish people have the right to self-determination.
I think the notion that any group has rights is problematic at best. Individuals have rights, not groups. Individuals can act collectively as a group, but the idea that that somehow imbues the group with some sort of right seems strange or confused to say the least.
> I think the notion that any group has rights is problematic at best. Individuals have rights, not groups. Individuals can act collectively as a group, but the idea that that somehow imbues the group with some sort of right seems strange or confused to say the least.
This matches the "individuality thesis" [1] (often debated among philosophers).
For those who haven't explored the territory, I recommend the journey. There is no rush to figure it out. I suggest trying out various viewpoints and taking your time with it: maybe even remaining a bit uncertain for your entire life!
- Uncertainty often takes an unfair beating. Uncertainty is preferable to confused or premature certainty. I would actually go further and say there is deep virtue in uncertainty -- there is an openness there. Absolute certainty closes doors; in a way it closes its eyes to new experience.
- There is value in being uncertain about one's values! For individuals, locking in one's ethics can be unwise. [2] For cultures, value lock-in can be stifling or even oppressive. For AI, value lock-in is sometimes called incorrigibility and can be problematic or worse. Humans have a tendency to grow and change, all the way down to our value systems.
Anyhow, I digress. Here are some relevant selections from Wikipedia's entry on Will Kymlicka:
> In Multicultural Citizenship (1995), Kymlicka argues that group-specific rights are consistent with liberalism, and are particularly appropriate, if not outright demanded, in certain situations.
> For Kymlicka, the standard liberal criticism, which states that group rights are problematic because they often treat individuals as mere carriers of group identities, rather than autonomous social agents, is overstated or oversimplified. The actual problem of minorities and how they should be viewed in liberal democracies is much more complex. There is a distinction between good group rights, bad group rights, and intolerable group rights.
[2]: I learned this from What We Owe The Future by William MacAskill. Did he borrow it from someone else? Maybe Derek Parfit? I'll need to research more.
Counter question, by that logic, what about the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people? Or the people of Lebanon or Syria for that matter?
reply