"it is not in general possible to find bugs by examining the code"
That really depends on the quality of developers you are dealing with.
I certainly find myself assessing code quality, performance issues, shortcomings. Occasionally trivial bugs. Most importantly you review for taste, I'm tasting the code.
Maintainability is definitely important but is pretty subjective and is a subset of taste in general.
"When you build structure before the feature arrives, you’re committing on a guess."
I would argue that you are guessing either way. It could be probable that your feature will arrive, but not certain. It's a probability. If you don't build structure now, there's a cost for refactoring. If you build prematurely and the feature never arrives, you wasted effort.
What's the cost, probability and trade off between those possibilities? Obviously it depends. The whole YAGNI idea is a massive generalisation by design. Ultimately it depends on the circumstance.
Either way, it's often full of guessing and hand waving. It's the same problem as giving reliable work estimates. Certain software developers don't cope well with an uncertain world and look for black-and-white rules for everything.
CLAUDE.md is already a good system for context window management for all the same reasons that version control management of code is good.
And keeping a local copy of everything you ever told Claude in your context window is bad for the same reasons keeping a local copy of your code called My_Code_v3_final.zip is bad.
I've been following roadmap.sh, and while it's not a comprehensive learning resource, it does help close obvious knowledge gaps. As it happens I was just reading about this.
Is there any evidence in this paper or elsewhere that this is causation rather than correlation?
For example, it seems logical to me that people with worse health and failing mental faculties will already be feeling more motivation to retire earlier, as opposed to very healthy people who will keep on working forever. That would be pure correlation
Now that Microsoft are removing support for Windows 10, which is still running on many not-that-old devices that don't support Windows 11, I think the correct, mainstream advice HAS to be to install Linux on those machines. Those are still perfectly usable machines that can be used for productivity or enjoy a massive catalog of games.
We've reached a point where Microsoft greed and carelessness is degrading Windows from all angles. With the constant forced Copilot, forced sign-ups, annoying pop-ups and ads, it is figuratively unusable; in the case of machines stuck on Windows 10 it is literally unusable.
They are now banking entirely on a captive market of Enterprise customers who have invested too much to quit. The enshittification is feature complete.
By coincidence I also finished The Fellowship of the Ring about two weeks ago.
I have always had the intuition about reading speed that it is very easy to be a speed reader if you skim over things. I've always questioned how much of speed reading is just skipping stuff and filtering for the most important word tokens.
You could skip all of Tolkien's scenery descriptions, you could skip Tom Bombadil and Lothlorien and still know basically what happened to Frodo and where he's going. But that's not really the point. When I read a book of that much importance, I've always read every word and understood every sentence. I get easily distracted and often have to reread passages. I am not a fast reader. Tolkien's descriptions are not always that easy. But this is what I find so rewarding about reading in the first place.
However, when I'm reading an article online, the difference is stark. When I read articles, I usually start from the bottom and read backwards. That's my way of finding out the results, and then piecing together how much context I actually need to understand it. Maybe I should slow that down sometimes.