Yes the reasoning behind the decision is clear and as you described. But I would also make the point that the decision also comes with certain consequences, to which a discussion about merits is directly relevant.
AI generated code is generally pretty good and incredibly fast.
Seeing this new phenomenon must be difficult for those people who have spent a long time perfecting their craft. Essentially, they might feel that their skillsets are being undermined. It would be especially hard for people who associate a lot of their self-identity with their job.
Being a purist is noble, but I think that this stance is foolish. Essentially, people who chose not to use AI code tools will be overtaken by the people who do. That's the unfortunate reality.
I really don't like using natural keys as primary keys.
Natural keys sometimes need to change for unforeseen reasons, such as identity theft, and this is really tricky to manage if those keys are cascaded into many tables as foreign keys.
CSV has caused me a lot of problems due to the weak type system. If I save a Dataframe to CSV and reload it, there is no guarantee that I'll end up with an identical dataframe.
I can depend on parquet. The only real disadvantages with parquet are that they aren't human-readable or mutable, but I can live with that since I can easily load and resave them.
My instinct is that it would be cheaper overall to buy API credits when needed, compared with buying a top-of-the-line GPU which sits idle for most of the day. That also opens up access to larger models.
It's quite amazing to watch the 'reasoning' process unfolding when asking a complicated coding question. It forms deep insights within minutes, that would take me several hours to formulate on my own.
Dimmable, adjustable color-temperature bulbs are one of those things which seem a bit unnecessary at first, but they really do make a big difference for quality of life. I use Wifi-enabled globes. On the plus side they have beautiful aesthetics but on the downside my lightglobes are probably going to get hacked and join a botnet.
Nice one. If I'm reading this right, the chances of successful exit are roughly 15%? That seems like some good odds considering the potential asymmetrical upside.
Great article. We hear so much about the unicorns of the world that we sometimes forget about the countless other failed ventures. In these cases, it doesn't mean that the idea was bad, or that the founders weren't good enough. Sometimes it's just that luck wasn't on-side.