This seems unnecessarily rude. If you have examples of when somebody would use the words “same” and “different” interchangeably in a sentence that are so obvious that it justifies being rude, the bigger dunk would be to post them
Love that I am not alone in this thinking! I test it on embedded systems (ex now Raspberry Pi 5) coupled with ESP32 as a sidecar. So, the core OS is running on the Pi and is reading data off the ESP32-connected sensors, basically.
It's not interactive. It's just an extremely brief brochure for the actual service, which is available via SSH. All the useful copy is under the About link at the bottom, which is so light as to fail WCAG contrast standards.
In late 2022 our telco soft eng team got purged and everyone who was even friends with people who might be Chinese were removed from the project. That included the original architect and product owner, both Americans but with Chinese roots. So there that!
I wonder if there would be more outrage if this was done to those with Israeli connections? Yes, Israel is an ally but they have been known to spy on us and share our secrets with other nations, like China.
I don't like this. Feels like easily become racist. E.g. people from Southeast Asia, Japan, or Korea who might not even speak Chinese but getting fired because they "look Chinese"
I don’t like this either. It falls under what I referred to as “highly controversial” choices.
But I also don’t doubt that if the coin was flipped, China would not hesitate at all to fire any non-Chinese person from such sensitive projects, and all without any outcry you would see in the West.
I think people are getting used to stuff not working. People (like me) use crap like Teams, Slack, that web version of Office, Outlook, etc. on a daily basis and pour huge amounts money in. They use shit like Fortinet (the digital version of dream catchers) and so on.
Things break. A lot. Doctors successful or not also deal with the same shitty IT on a daily basis.
Nobody cares about engineering. It's about selling stuff, not about reliability, etc.
And to some degree one is forced to use that stuff anyways.
So sure you can go to a company understanding engineering, but if you do a job for salary you might lose out on quite a bit on it if you care for things like quality. We see this in so many different sectors.
Sure there is a unicorn here and there that makes it for a while. And they might even go big and then they sell the company or change to maximizing profits, because that's the only way up when you essentially already made it (on top of one of the big players).
For small projects/companies it depends if you have a way to still launch big, which you can usually do with enough capital. You can still make a big profit with a crappy product then, but essentially only once or twice. But then your goal also doesn't have to create quality.
Microsoft and Fortinet for example wouldn't profit from adding (much) quality. They profit from hypes. So they now both do "AI".
Yup, we are all definitely lowering the bar of what's acceptable when it comes to uptime and bugs. More features more hype x10 seems to be the standard approach to market, but there are still a lot of companies and teams where greybeards and rational folks remember and understand previous hype cycles/bubbles, and who appreciate and protect the engineering approach. It's just that they mostly hire/partner by reference, so it's kinda hard to exit the toxic bubble of startups and "growth hacking" enterprises.
1k loc per day or 1k git additions? I don't think one person can consistently review 1k loc, and grow codebase at that speed and size and classify it as good, tested and reviewed..
Can you tell us more about your process?
I'm effectively no longer typing code by hand: I decide what change I want to make and then prompt Claude Code to describe that change. Sometimes I'll have it figure out the fix too.
I built that claude-code-timeline application this morning too, and that thing is 2284 lines of code: https://github.com/simonw/tools/commits/main/claude-code-tim... - but that was much more of a vibe-coded thing, I hardly reviewed the code that was written at all and shipped it as soon as it appeared to work correctly. Since it's a standalone HTML file there's not too much that can go wrong if it has bugs in it.
Whenever I start reviewing code produced by Claude I find hundreds of ways to improve it.
I don't know if code quality really matters to most people or to the bottom line, but a good software engineer writes better code than Claude. It is a testament to library maintainers that Claude is able to code at all, in my opinion. One reason is that Claude uses API's in whacky ways. For instance by reading the SDL2 documentation I was able to find many ways that Claude writes SDL2 using archaic patterns from the SDL days.
I think there are a lot of hidden ways AI booster types benefit from basic software engineering practices that they actively promote damaging ideas about. Maybe it will only be 10 years from now that we learn that having good engineers is actually important.
> Whenever I start reviewing code produced by Claude I find hundreds of ways to improve it.
Same here. So I tell it what improvements I want to make and watch it make them.
I've gained enough experience at prompting it that it genuinely is faster for me to tell it the change I want to make than it is for me to make that change myself, 90% of the time.
You missed the point. The original post is about not reading code.
You actually missed the point in two ways, because my response had little or nothing to do with speed of producing code. I'm not sure why you felt the need to express that irrelevant objection.
My approach used to be similar few months ago before I figured out a way to automate and paralleize part of this process. However the part I'm still curious about is how to get into consistent and sustainable 4 digit LOC daily (assuming up to 8h of work). I can have 10k PR today but debug it and refine it whole week and it'll still be weak code long term..
