Seems to be run by a married couple of (maybe) burnt out account managers. That, in combination with some AI help, explains the empty "LinkedIn slop" writing style I think.
It's not often I comment on blog posts, but this is honestly one of the most meaningless blogs I've ever read (not counting those fully AI-generated SEO ones). I don't get why it ended up so high on Hacker News; it has an interesting title I guess, but pretty much no substance.
The game Overwatch is a pretty great contemporary example of this [1]. It has some excellent fluid animations, which look really weird if you freeze frame them.
I don't think GPUs ever had branch prediction in the first place. You can however run into poor performance due to thread divergence, which is a similar kind of issue (with much less black magic).
Yes. I'm sure it would feel nice to pay off my apartment loan, but the interest rate on that is 2.75%, which is way lower than what I can (reasonably) expect to make on the stock market.
> Product owners and engineers could initially collaborate on this spec and on test cases to enforce business rules. Those should be checked into the project repositories along with the implementing code. There would need to be automated pull-request checks verifying not only that tests pass but that code conforms to the spec. This specification, and not the code that materializes it, is what the team would need to understand, review, and be held accountable for.
This just sounds like typical requirements management software (IBM DOORS for example, which has been around since the 90s).
It's kind of funny how AI evangelists keep re-discovering the need for work methods and systems that have existed for decades.
When I worked as a software developer at a big telecom company and I had no say in what the software was supposed to do, that was up to the software design people--they were the ones responsible for designing the software and defining all the requirements--I was just responsible for implementing that behavior in code.
Spec-driven development is basically PRIDE, the first proven commercial software methodology dating back to 1971. In fact it may be the culmination of PRIDE because PRIDE's creators realized coding wasn't the hard part; the hard part was systems analysis, determining what problem needed to be solved and what to build. Coding comes last and when you did it right, was simply a translation step.
And now that step can be 100% automated.
Information systems design was a solved problem in the 1970s. PRIDE turned it from an art into a proven, repeatable science. Programmers, afraid of losing their perceived importance, resisted the discipline it imposes as the mustang resists the bit, but now that they're going the way of buggy-whip makers, maybe systems design as a science will make a comeback after 50 years.
One of my first tasks at my first job out of college required me to learn dxl (doors extension language) and implement some really intricate requirements management features.
It was gratifying to build the confidence of learning a new language quickly that I had never even heard of before. DXL was also pretty awful.
Opened a lot of doors for me though, no pun intended.
A couple of quotes from one of the employed baristas (translated from a Swedish local news article) [1].
"I'm worried every time there's a delivery, I never know what she's ordered."
"I like it. At the interview, Mona didn't care that I have dialect or I don't have a doctorate. For her, the most important thing was that I was nice and could make coffee."
If he has learned something from the experiment, it is that it is the middle managers and all CEOs who are at risk of being replaced by AI – not the baristas.
"Without me here, it would have been difficult for Mona."
Yes, it is literally a place, I wasn't saying it wasn't. The fiction is that this is pure PR fluff of what is actually going on, a human/dev team is prodding this thing in ways to "manage" the employees. This was pointed out in their last PR stunt:
So yes, it is a type of fiction. They also have every incentive to hype this up, given what their company does. I really wish people had more skepticism and critical thought with these things, it isn't actually good at all for the AI space and its future success.
Considering the size (and significance) of the VSCode user base, it feels like someone should be in charge of ensuring that default behavior doesn't change without good reason.
Does anyone (or any team) have ownership of the extensions/git/package.json file?
It's not often I comment on blog posts, but this is honestly one of the most meaningless blogs I've ever read (not counting those fully AI-generated SEO ones). I don't get why it ended up so high on Hacker News; it has an interesting title I guess, but pretty much no substance.