I am a developer and product designer, with many years working in small-scale startups. I’ve launched multiple products, scaled teams, and helped build strategies that impacted hundreds of thousands of users.
I've always played the game that tests are only as useful as you have resources to attribute to them. Mostly all modern development is a compromise between new features and stuff that supports those new features (tests included, but also reviews, code maintenance, docs, etc.).
If LLMs can be utilized to quickly make deep testing possible, I think that's probably a net-positive.
I'm curious. Do you attribute this to weak and/or incomplete tests? How granular should tests be to have complete coverage so that an AI won't create a converted codebase that "passes tests" but is still functionally inaccurate?
We read to them from a very young age, and kept doing it. They are 13, 11, and 7 now and we still read books together every night for the littlest one, and most nights for the older two. My wife loves doing it and finds that it is solid bonding time.
We also instilled in them that it's a good thing for people to do on their own, and have slowly been providing them guidance on what "good literature" is by providing a constant stream of recommendations. We let them choose whatever they want, of course, and don't for anything on them. They are in total control.
Beyond that, we've taught them that the library is a nice place to just hang out. It's quiet, safe, and theirs as much as anybody else's. We are stuck living in a tiny apartment in a city in the US, and for them being able to just go to the library and have time to themselves is a positive for everyone.
Lastly, we've tried to give them a sense that language itself is fun and beautiful. Lots of word games. Lots of learning weird, esoteric words that nobody else seems to know. They get a kick out of it and so do we.
My kids are active, voracious readers. At least one book (500-700 pages) a week. It feels like one of the only things that I've really done right as a parent.
If I remember correctly, there's an interesting historical reason for this: a lot of the original functionality that we'd today consider "part of the OS" was actually in ROM on hardware in really old Macs. Mouse functionality, basic windowing, etc. This meant that to get A/UX running you first had to bootstrap into a light version of Mac OS and then boot into A/UX.
I'm torn between "this was so bad, there's no way that they can forget" and "god, there's just enough time for just enough people to forget". I hate this.
I am a developer and product designer, with many years working in small-scale startups. I’ve launched multiple products, scaled teams, and helped build strategies that impacted hundreds of thousands of users.