My partner and I spent ~$70 CAD at popeyes the other day for two adults. I got a sandwich + fries + slaw, they got tenders, we both got fountain drinks.
What's "correct" in this context? From the State's perspective it _is_ harmony, regardless of the restriction on personal freedom.
A western-context example of the same phenomenon might be the American notion of freedom. Americans often frame freedom as an absence of government restriction, but that leaves you open to exploitation (or restriction) from private entities. The same definitional dissonance exists, but it depends on which line of the emotional divide you're sitting on.
How do you handle translating that into a language used largely in a context that doesn't have that history?
Chad taught me programming when I was a child, and introduced me to a professor I then went on to work for. Sadly I haven't kept up with him, but I second his impact: both big and small, he's a brilliant and caring guy.
Number one economy yes, but other measures lag: education, health care outcomes, overall happiness, life expectancy...
I suspect that when you bring a competitive attitude into every aspect of life it limits how much you're willing to invest in systems that don't seem to give you an individual advantage. Americans are much more against single payer healthcare, or investing in public transit, or other forms of social support than their peer (or "near-peer", to use the government's preferred term) nations.
It almost feels like a comedic extrapolation of the classic sports-team movie arc: Sure, it's possible to create a team that prizes winning above all else, but is winning all that's worthwhile at the end of the day?
One of my coworkers points out to me every sports reference that pops up in our internal company communications (e.g. "WINNING", "Going to put together a winning team," etc). It seems like everything in the US is couched in competitive language.
Some friends and I read "A People's History of the United States" a while back and were surprised at how true this is. US classroom history textbooks hold civil disobedience up as the One True Way to bring change, but it's alarming how often the backdrop of famous acts of civil disobedience was in fact incredible violence.
Our conclusion in our impromptu book club was that made sense: why would the state schools give students lots of examples of how violence against the state was an effective negotiating tool? It was extremely jarring to reconcile with the image of US history we'd been imbued with up to that point, which of course was also a reflection of our socioeconomic status at the time.
As a counterpoint, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants" is also taught in schools, so it's possible I'm just selectively remembering things.
Not if your CI depends on github, or if you have specific actions to review things, or if you use SSO because you're an enterprise, or....
Workarounds exist for each of these cases, but they add significant friction. That's not terrible if you're one person, but if you're an org? big problem.
I got a ReMarkable a couple years ago. The writing and screen experience were phenomenal, but the ereader UX and file transfer UX turned me off. I returned it within a couple days. I've been disappointed by how other eink tablets I've tried have felt since, but since 90% of my use is reading I haven't minded.
> Writing an extemporaneous essay from start to finish in one draft
Every English class I had in high school focused so strongly on how important revision was, or at a minimum having an outline to work from. While AP tests expected us to dash off essays by hand in a single go I empathize with OP around how useful a tool revision is.
Your middle point is great and very relatable; I've had the same frustration/argument with myself before: Am I playing this game because I actually want to, or because it's "easier" than anything else I could be doing?
Props to you for pushing yourself to confront the uncomfortable!
> It finally hit me how much time I wasted on that game.
I don't agree that leisure is inherently wasting time, which I think is a pretty common belief across North America in general and within Tech specifically. I don't know if that's what you're asserting, but it does seem to be the thesis of the backing site ("if you spent all this time that you spent on a leisure activity elsewhere, you could have XYZ 'better' skill!")
Of course, all things in balance; gaming addiction is a thing, and I've absolutely been guilty of using Titanfall 2 to farm dopamine rather than taking my dog for a walk or tidying my room.
I'm glad this helped you, but I already feel like my life is under enough pressure to be more efficient, more productive, have more of an impact, when I'd really just like to slow down and enjoy things more.
(I'm also a little sad, I originally thought this would map time spent in a game to a _corresponding_ skill, e.g. "400 hours in space engineers" -> "level 5 systems architect," or something. That's on me, it's not a criticism, but it's influencing my disappointment.)
> I'm going to talk to you whether you like it not. If you don't want to talk to people, then maybe don't put yourself in a social setting?
You seem to have a strange definition of what's a social situation. Maybe I want to be around people without talking to them; if I wanted to strike up conversation with strangers, I'd sit at a bar.
You're obviously conscious of the fact that you may be doing something that people don't want, which makes it all the more confusing to me that you're upset about people possibly preferring their phones to books: if you're going to interrupt them either way and potentially invade their space, why do you care how they're signalling? (For the record, I don't think people inherently are signalling, but you seem to--it's the inconsistency in your own stated approach that's confusing me.)
> Even if you're just reading an e-book the phone contributes to the perceived loneliness of those around you.
This is a wild projection of your own experience onto someone else's actions.
> If you really want to read a book in peace, try a library.
I've quite enjoyed the times I've taken a book to a restaurant and read over a meal. I do not appreciate you, or people like you, dictating how I ought to act in public in a way that doesn't affect anyone else in the slightest.
I don't want to start conversations when I'm alone at a table with my book. The fact that you find it somehow less social for me to be on my phone instead of reading a book when I am minding my own business at my own table seems like a tremendous failure in your own boundaries and expectations of other people.
people at my org were gleeful when they learned they could hook LLMs into Slack. Even if we had some reliable, well-used signature system, I think people would just let AI use it to send emails on their behalf.
what's account creation on an esp32 running micropython? or an arduino? what happens when the law is expanded to require biometric enforcement of what the user reports?
Also, I don't want my OS to report my age range to every website I visit anyway.
> Shipping “quality only” work for a long time can be stressful for your colleagues and the product teams.
I buried the lede a bit, but my frustration has been feeling like _nobody_ on my team prioritizes quality and instead optimizes for feature velocity, which then leaves some poor sod (me) to pick up the pieces to keep everything ticking over... but then I'm not shipping features.
At the end of the day if my value system is a mismatch from my employer's that's going to be a problem for me, it just baffles me that I keep ending up in what feels like an unsustainable situation that nobody else blinks at.
> These are exactly the kind of tasks that I ask an AI tool to perform.
Very reasonable nowadays, but those were things I was doing back in 2018 as a junior engineer.
> Some tasks will be given over entirely to agentic tools.
Absolutely, and I've found tremendous value in using agents to clean up old techdebt with oneline prompts. They run off, make the changes, modify tests, then put up a PR. It's brilliant and has fully reshaped my approach... but in a lot of ways expectations on my efficiency are much worse now because leadership thinks I can rewrite our techstack to another language over a weekend. It almost doesn't matter that I can pass all this tidying off onto an LLM because I'm expected to have 3x the output that I did a year ago.
Ultimately that's only an option if you can sustain the impact to your career (not getting promoted, or getting fired). My org (publicly traded, household name, <5k employees) is all-in on AI with the goal of having 100% of our code AI generated within the next year. We have all the same successes and failures as everyone else, there's nothing special about our case, but our technical leadership is fundamentally convinced that this is both viable and necessary, and will not be told otherwise.
People who disagree at all levels of seniority have been made to leave the organization.
Practically speaking, there's no sexy pitch you can make about doing quality grunt work. I've made that mistake virtually every time I've joined a company: I make performance improvements, I stabilize CI, I improve code readability, remove compiler warnings, you name it: but if you're not shipping features, if you're not driving the income needle, you have a much more difficult time framing your value to a non-engineering audience, who ultimately sign the paychecks.
Obviously this varies wildly by organization, but it's been true everywhere I've worked to varying degrees. Some companies (and bosses) are more self-aware than others, which can help for framing the conversation (and retaining one's sanity), but at the end of the day if I'm making a stand about how bad AI quality is, but my AI-using coworker has shipped six medium sized features, I'm not winning that argument.
It doesn't help that I think non-engineers view code quality as a technical boogeyman and an internal issue to their engineering divisions. Our technical leadership's attitude towards our incidents has been "just write better code," which... Well. I don't need to explain the ridiculousness of that statement in this forum, but it undermines most people's criticism of AI. Sure, it writes crap code and misses business requirements; but in the eyes of my product team? That's just dealing with engineers in general. It's not like they can tell the difference.
> Powertrain is not a concern. It's the load a bike can carry vs a car overall.
Sure, an automobile will pretty much always win out in raw capacity, but I'd argue it's a policy problem that makes us reliant on automobiles for day to day life. If people only needed a car for their weekly grocery trip but could bike to work or school or the doctor's office that would still significantly reduce our reliance on automobiles, with benefits in health and energy.
> I don't want to risk having an injury on a bike either. A car is much safer.
Also a reasonable concern, but again more of a policy problem: we prioritize cars over pretty much every other form of transportation to the detriment of everyone else in public spaces. If we had more protected walkways / bikeways then everyone would be safer.
In general I don't think we regulate the safe use of automobiles nearly as much as we ought to in the states. Leaving it as an individual concern makes it a race to the bottom, with everyone buying bigger and bigger cars in the name of safety, all other externalities be dammed.
that's about $50 USD.