Cognitive dissonance from being confronted with evidence they're not actually speeding up, when us non-AI devs are only having issues with managers pushing it from above even though we're not actually falling behind?
Sounds like smart glasses might do it, if you normally wear glasses. Don't know how visible the display is from the outside, but I imagine if it isn't already they'd eventually be made invisible for privacy.
I learned to read younger than most, and could read well, but never really liked it. My parents tried the things in the other replies you got, but none of it actually worked (reading to me in particular my mom is convinced did it, but she never realized I was mostly ignoring her and watching other kids play).
I actually remember specifically what it was: finding this book in the impulse-buy section of our local Walgreens when waiting at the checkout line at about 9 or 10 years old: https://animorphs.fandom.com/wiki/The_Forgotten
For some reason I was big into animals, so that cover really caught my eye. Up until that point I knew almost nothing about sci-fi, so this and the rest of the series was basically my introduction to the genre, which is still the majority of what I read.
So my basic advice is a bit vague but: find a book on a topic they'd like, with a relevant cover, and somehow position it so they discover it and curiosity takes over. Don't push it on them, they'll probably just assume it's something you like instead of something they'd like (which was the case for almost everything before I discovered sci-fi).
Each of these quotes is from a different part of that Wikipedia page:
> It involves guessing the meaning of unfamiliar words based on context clues, as opposed to phonics, the more traditional method of sounding out words.
> Three cueing methods have been criticized for misunderstanding how reading is acquired and for potentially damaging children's reading abilities over the long term.
> In response to the example of children failing to distinguish between "pony" and "horse", Goodman argued that it was irrelevant whether children understood the specific word, as "pony" and "horse" are similar concepts, and a reader failing to distinguish between them would still understand the meaning of the story as a whole.
> Some researchers and educators have attributed part of three cueing's popularity in classrooms to its ease of teaching relative to phonics.
> As of 2020, an estimated 75% of American teachers used three cueing.
> Over 12 states have explicitly banned educators from teaching three cueing. A lawsuit was filed by families in Massachusetts whose children had been taught three cueing; one of the plaintiffs stated that her son had difficulty reading once classroom materials transitioned into using chapter books.
Pretty much. There's probably better examples but using some of what's come up here so far: python is strong+dynamic, javascript is weak+dynamic, typescript is weak+static*, java is strong+static.
* Maybe. Not quite sure about "weak" for this one, but I think it makes sense because you can just lie to typescript and then after compilation it just runs as javascript.
Case 1 seems to be missing something: The upgrade was months before the spike, so something else must have also changed recently. If it was just the optimization in the upgrade it ought to have happened earlier.
Also to be a compiler-type next-level-up abstraction we'd have to be at the point where we commit the prompts and throw away the code.
(Which is pretty much what determinism would get us, but in these conversations way too many people seem not to understand what determinism is, so describing it in terms of actions the developer takes might work better?)
> At least AI tends to be smarter about React intricacies even if it does create huge files.
Oh no it's not. You just haven't seen where it goes when barely supervised by someone new to React. I've seen a level of spaghetti code with excessive useEffect and useMemo, reinventing two-way binding, I didn't even know was possible in React.
Spent months detangling weeks of AI-generated work earlier this year. Eventually got to the point we were actually fixing bugs by accident that previously neither they nor the tool could figure out.
Try writing it in first person instead of second person or neutral.
A while ago someone had a similar complaint on here and shared some example lines, and that popped out at me immediately. However much structure we've wrapped these in, they're still text generators trained on all sorts of things, and if you think about a narrative where first and second person speech would be used, try to imagine context: In first person, it's most likely a description of something as it happens or someone planning what they will do. But in second person, especially command form, you open up to the possibility of commands being ignored, misunderstood, or actively rebelled against.
Whoever that was back then did some quick tests and found the pattern held, first person got it to follow far more reliably.
> but if you have a db that is accessed by various systems written in Java, dotnet, erlang or whatever else I suspect the smooth sailing of Django can run into headwinds quickly
Only if those systems are constantly adding/removing tables and columns. And adding isn't a problem, Django just ignores what's not specified in the models.
Django does have default table and column names based on the models that it prefers, but all of it is overridable in officially-supported ways. We're using it with mysql databases originally made for VB6 and C++ with inconsistent naming schemes that aren't even close to Django's defaults, that nowadays are also accessed by perl, php, and python. Most of our python uses are daemons that only use the models and none of the rest of the web framework - the models are defined in a common library they all use.
Scroll back up and notice most of these comments are distinguishing "marketing" from "marketers". I think a lot of people also wouldn't consider just an ad as marketing without some further details (such as the comment you replied to).
Except for the "multiple ORMs" part which is a level above it, it applies to the only one I've used extensively: Django for python. It has standard defaults, but just about everything overridable, and because models are python objects you can add methods or properties for extra data. There's even ways to define your own field types (the "serialization/de-serialization of individual properties"), which a decade ago people were using to provide json fields through libraries long before it was officially supported.
...and Django was like this 15 years ago when I first started using it. The core design hasn't changed, it just sounds like most other ORMs don't really know what they're doing.
An invariant is something that must always be true. The most basic example of this is a not-null foreign key, where a value in one table refers to a row in another table and that row in the other table must always exist.
> Are you really doing inserts exclusively based on the data of another table? You never take user input from a website? You never need to just get a list of data according to a query with some filtering?
There's an app for Android called "Forest" that gamifies not using your phone: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=cc.forestapp