I'm pretty impressed with regular Claude Code with Opus 4.7/4.8 in finding vulnerabilities in our code. Maybe 70% are false positives though. It's a lot of work to manually push back on the findings. Still worth it.
Same. I'm not american, but I see the same thing from the same crowd in my home country. They tend to think it's perfectly ok to lie if it's for a good thing (as defined by themselves).
The perspective that is constantly missing from these one-sided ICE threads on HN and Reddit (but often exposed in videos after the fact): What are the civilians/protesters actually doing in these situations?
This kind of "I'm a sovereign citizen, you can't touch me" behavior used to be rightfully belittled by the same crowd only a few years ago.
None of the ten or so staff tech writers I have worked closely with over the years have honestly been great. This has been disappointing.
Always had to contract external people to get stuff done really well. One was a bored CS university professor, another was a CTO in a struggling tiny startup who needed cash.
I recently pair-worked with two junior developers (on their first job, but still with like 2+ years with the company) in order to transfer the know-how of something.
I realized that they are shockingly bad at most basic things. Still their PR:s look really good (on the surface). I assume they use AI to write most of the code.
What they do excel in is a) cultural fit for the company and b) providing long-term context to the AIs for what needs to be done. They are essentially human filters between product/customers and the AI. They QA the AI models' output (to some extent).