Honestly, you could even skip pronouns. Just default to you & possibly they for third person references and write copy that avoids weird interactions of the word.
While I agree, I have found ChatGPT to be REALLY awful at symbolism because so many people are as well. It gives popular responses rather than most correct responses. As we have seen from politics, popular often times isn't correct.
An example of this is music:
ChatGPT responds to "What is the meaning of The Postal Service's The District Sleeps Alone Tonight?"
With:
"The meaning of "The District Sleeps Alone Tonight" by The Postal Service is open to interpretation, as the lyrics are somewhat vague and abstract. However, the song appears to be about the feeling of isolation and disconnection that can come from living in a big city. The lyrics reference the city as a "church" that "wraps [the narrator] in its twilight," and speaks of the planes flying overhead and their passengers "waving goodbye/ To all of their yesterdays." This could be seen as a metaphor for the transitory and fleeting nature of city life, with people constantly coming and going and not forming deep connections. The song may also be about the narrator's own sense of loneliness and longing for connection in the midst of the bustle and noise of the city."
There's two issues with this response:
1. The song is about the weird feeling of how places change with context, in this case it is about the context of a breakup and feeling out of place where you used to feel at home.
But there is a bit of a bigger issue....
2. Those lines ARE NOT IN THE SONG. lol.
What this shows is clean readable responses that are oftentimes extrapolation of a thread or idea to levels not reasonably verifiable. Like how Facebook is/was tuned for giving more and more isolated extreme content, ChatGPT is tuned to follow threads and bits of information to extreme levels and confidence.
> In theory, if TDD really reduces the number of bugs and speeds up development you would see if reflected in those higher level metrics that impact the customer.
The issue is that many TDD diehards believe that bugs and delays are made by coders who did not properly qualify their code before they wrote it.
In reality, bugs and delays are a product of an organization. Bad coders can write bad tests that pass bad code just fine. Overly short deadlines will cause poor tests. Furthermore, many coders reply that they have trouble with the task-switching nature of TDD. To write a complex function, I will probably break it out into a bunch of smaller pure functions. In TDD that may require you to either: 1. Write a larger function that passes the test and break it down. 2. Write a test that validates that the larger function calls other functions and then write tests that define each smaller function.
The problem with these flows is that 1: Causes rework and 2 ends up being like reading a book out of order, you may get to function 3 and realize that function 2 needed additional data and now you have to rewrite your test for 2. Once again rework. I'm sure there are some gains in some spaces but overall it seems that the rework burns those gains off.
I tried this by the way, you pay in performance in a big way. Even if you don’t need hardware acceleration the general compile performance is bad, about 3X longer on a large angular project than a MacBook Air.
The current shell in macOS is zSh and the Mac wrote the book on window management (other than the windows snapping ideas, which, fair, but it is just one app. On the other hand, macOS is like a wonderful land between windows and Linux with ease of use plus all the power features.