"Usually your code is extremely well documented and ready to go as is and I think your most recent PR could be improved in this area." It softens the blow while still retaining the relevant context.
>Anything you say before the word “but” does not count.
That's a funny one, and I agree, and it's also the reason I use "and" instead of "but" for those kinds of sentences. It sounds a little clunkier, but(!) it doesn't trigger people's alarms.
He sounds impressive, and I can get with you on being anti-ageist, but saying "The guy knows how to live" just reinforces the idea that everyone has their own take on what's important, and one size doesn't fit all. My idea of living my fullest potential barely overlaps with the apparent life of the person that you admire.
Floating point numbers are a common source of issues in large open world games. Because of how a float is stored, there is more precision for values closer to the "origin" of the world (0, 0, 0). Which means there is less precision for very far away things. This can result in things like "z-fighting"[0], which I'm sure most gamers have seen, and also issues with physics.
One solution to address some of the precision issues (not necessarily z-fighting, as it operates in a different coordinate system) is to dynamically re-adjust the player's world origin as they move throughout the world. This way, they are always getting the highest float precision for things near to them.
It doesn't sound like the person you're replying to understands that the code returned is largely synthesized with OpenAI's Codex. It is not simply a "snippet selection" mechanism, it has "learned" (to a limited degree) patterns in code, and can generate those patterns even if they don't exist verbatim from the training set.
It sounds like you think most people upvoted it because it is a shiny toy and the bar is very low when it comes to impressing tech industry workers. And also you don't believe upvotes have a positive correlation with innovation on HN, because the mRNA vaccine posts don't have as many upvotes as you think they should. Does that about sum it up?
It sounds like you have it all figured out, so I just have one question: if it's not innovative (it's "no different than stackoverflow with X"), then what is your explanation for why the Copilot announcement here received over 2.8k votes? It's so obviously just stackoverflow with a better selection mechanism, so why aren't people treating it as such?
I think it's clear that Copilot pushes boundaries...technological and legal. It makes people uncomfortable and challenges a lot of assumptions that we have about the current world. But this is exactly what I expect from the next revolutionary change in computing.
I would do this auditing job, no joke. A kind of "code-smell" service, that can yield problematic areas, along with a report of engineers that could use additional guidance/training/reigning-in would be super valuable from a manager's perspective. And because it's a neutral party, they can feel good that there's no politics.
One challenging bit about this service would definitely be quantifying improvements. Since the problem is somewhat hidden by nature, you would almost need testimonials from other engineers on the team.
That hurt me to read! Have you communicated this to your manager? Might be worthwhile to have a decision "from the top" that is essentially: all logging is good, so long as it doesn't hurt performance or contain PII/PHI.
Nothing wrong with making it up as you go, and I didn't mean to sound like I was knocking it, if I did. Sometimes everyone fumbles around trying to find solutions that work...it's a totally valid way to approach some problems.
Sometimes it's a hybrid of knowing what you are doing but not knowing the implementation specifics. You know you need to connect high-level pieces A, B, and C with specific constraints, but it won't be until you get into the low-level implementation that you'll know if it is indeed possible. I think that's an example of both having a vision and also improvising as you go.
I am concerned about how to effectively communicate visions to people, because it gets everyone rowing in the same direction. If nobody thinks that you have a vision, when you do, there is no reason they should choose your direction vs just do their own thing.
Amen. Something bizarre I have noticed though in junior-almost-senior engineers is that they pride themselves in obfuscating and writing "highly complex" logic, with no documentation. It's almost like they are demonstrating their new abilities in the worst way possible. I have been dealing with one of these engineers recently, and they have expressed to me that they love writing <highly problematic, confusing code> because it's so terse. It's been a point of friction, actually, because I have been trying to get other engineers to help on the software they have been contributing to, but it is nearly indecipherable without the original author's help.
>Don't meet your heroes. I paid 5k to take a course by one of my heroes. He's a brilliant man, but at the end of it I realized that he's making it up as he goes along like the rest of us.
I thought they were going to go the direction of "he's an asshole" and was ready to accept that, but this particular criticism is actually disturbing. People with strong visions can often appear to be "making it up as they go along," when really they are just subpar communicators.
Short story, I am helping my current company switch from a monolith to service-oriented architecture, and in the process have built a framework for spinning up new fully-deployable services from scratch that gets engineers 90% of the way there (minus the business logic). I have a strong vision for how it works and had a dozen-page RFC accepted by the engineering team for it. Yet there are engineers who think I am making it up as I go (I have been asked this indirectly), without any vision guiding the pieces into place. I have chalked up this feedback to me needing to improve my communication of the vision.
So the post's response of "I realized that he's making it up as he goes along like the rest of us" is disturbing because it makes me realize just how difficult communicating a vision is... if this hero that the poster paid $5k to go see can't even convince one of their fans, what chance do normal people like you and I have of convincing people that we're not making it up as we go?
>EDIT: I realize that I am posting under the assumption that the person's hero does in fact know what he's doing. If he truly is making it up as he goes, the above doesn't apply.
Thank the Constitution that some of those "nice things" (freedom of speech, for example) are acknowledged as intrinsic rights and not granted to us by the government. So yes, we can have still them, because they cannot be taken away, only infringed upon, regardless of who is spoiling them.
"Usually your code is extremely well documented and ready to go as is and I think your most recent PR could be improved in this area." It softens the blow while still retaining the relevant context.