Heh, I like the analogy but my question was really why it was considered such a hassle.
I mean we deal with daylight saving time all the time and I know it's not the same because the leap second affects UTC, not just local time zone, it's just that you are either dealing with monotonically increasing time like epoch, or you are dealing with "human" time and I found no distinction in the latter.
Is it "just" that leap seconds or delay seconds caused problems in epoch to utc conversion? Note the just in quotes, but did I just answer my own question? :)
I agree, I don't like it either. But... how would they then implement a world where you can wander everywhere? What it brings to the table is that you can wander across the world and not become terribly outmatched as soon as you wander "too soon" to an area.
My gaming preference is to go to an area as per game design, so the fact that I would be outmatched does not bother me and would prefer it that way. I do, however, understand why the game designers chose level scaling for what they wanted to achieve.
Can you explain where this comes from? I mean, that's not even close to what the norm is in Europe. Though, to be fair, we don't normally count fuel into TCO and the reasoning is: if you want to go distances then you are always paying for them. Whether it's public transport or taxis or whatever. Is fuel the major contributor in the number?
I think it now has a slightly different lens. The DropBox argument was that anyone can build this in five minutes, so why use this? Now, with LLMs, the argument is that anyone can build its own.
I remember reading an article in National Geographic of how crow's brains are much more interconnected than is the norm in mammals, i.e. IIRC they have a higher density of synapses between neurons. From that article, it seems that the usual brain weight vs. body weight to determine intelligence, which seems can be used to approximate intelligence in different species of mammals, cannot be used for birds (or at least crows, which the article was focusing on).
In other words, they seem to achieve better results with smaller brains than we thought. And yes, crows (in EU) do exhibit some pretty intelligent behavior.
You mean the middle management? I have been in environments where they were almost literally made up of pencil pushers. Wouldn't be too sad to see them go. Only half joking, but it is written in jest.
Indeed, there were plenty of people doing just that. I imagine they get the most out of vibe coding. However, when it became a problem, an engineer was still required to fix it.
It might have been you, a couple of months later, or someone else. I have dealt with slop produced by unknowing programmers most of my career. With this vibe coding I think my job is still safe. The amount, though, is increasing exponentially.
Indeed. I have to say, I hate this. Suppose you are in a meeting, you update something and you see the result, but the rest of the team does not. Ok, a couple of hundred ms does not play into this but if the update does not make it through? And yes, it happens.
But... software engineering was never about the boiler plate. Or adding the extra parameter.
It was about knowing how to fit the new use case into an existing code base, respecting the architecture, and sometimes rearchiteting the solution. How easy the latter was is really dependent on whether the code/arcitecture respected the low coupling, high cohesion principle.
Now, some of this can be coerced into LLMs but it takes work and careful study of the changes. Sometimes they get it right, many times they do not. So, you have to go back and forth with them. If you know what they should have produced.
SWE is far from dead. We just let too much slop into the codebase because we're overwhelmed by it and not incentivized by leadership to care. Code quality will likely drop to the point where even the leadership will notice and it will normalize again. There's nothing like a high profile customer calling out a problem that was vibe coded. It has started already and will be happening more and more.
I tend to agree. I was describing how I think it could work and how I suppose it worked before. Nowadays, when contact with many people outside of the group is ubiquitous, I think it's next to impossible, but maybe there's people out there that make it work. Good for them, if they found a way.
In a poly I would guess people need to feel attached to a group not a single individual, in a sense loving all people in the group almost equally. Mostly, we are not raised that way and culturally it would be unconventional, to say the least.
Other posters have said something similar, but I wanted to be more direct: nobody should ever seek validation from outside of themselves (not that I don't have problems with this, I am just saying how it should be).
It's inevitable in childhood, but the parents' role is to create an independent individual. This often not the case, so we see ourselves in need of validation from our spouses, bosses, etc. and it can cause people to stay in bad working or personal relationships.
The trick is to be proud of yourself in an all-encompassing form, admit where you are not good at and improve, if you want to. Advice is welcome but critique should not lessen how you feel about yourself.
Just my 2c and what my experience in life taught me.
I think it is important to learn how to implement it because it gives the student an opportunity to learn precisely because it's been done countless times and debated over to death. There are many analyses and if one doesn't click, maybe another one will. A student can learn how to analyze the algorithms and try out different implementations to assess differences in performance.
Of course, if a student just breezes through it then I would agree. That would make no sense.
I mean we deal with daylight saving time all the time and I know it's not the same because the leap second affects UTC, not just local time zone, it's just that you are either dealing with monotonically increasing time like epoch, or you are dealing with "human" time and I found no distinction in the latter.
Is it "just" that leap seconds or delay seconds caused problems in epoch to utc conversion? Note the just in quotes, but did I just answer my own question? :)