If that were the case, I wouldn't be using Cursor to write my code. It's definitely faster to write with Cursor, because it basically always knows what I was going to write myself anyway, so it saves me a ton of time.

Frankly the "this didn't exist before" and extend-the-line "it will keep getting better" is not only bad reasoning, it's getting tired.

Yeah transformers doing NLP well is pretty impressive. No, it is not worth burning hundreds of billions of dollars on GPU data centers. And please, stop the hype. Non-technical decision makers are really spoiling everything with magical thinking about "artificial intelligence". We still have to learn domains and engineer products. There is no silver bullet.

I don't know whom you're replying to, but it doesn't seem to be to my comment. It feels like you skimmed my comment and then replied to a straw man.

But we've had Eliza since the 60's so what is there to get excited about?

We've also had sand, so I'm not sure what this "CPU" hype is about.

There's a big jump in utility from sand to a transistor.

Yes, that was exactly my point.

LLMs have no such utility gain when compared with Eliza.

If you think that, I'd encourage you to use one.

A few years ago I wrote an implementation of what you describe: https://skorokithakis.github.io/expounder/

This is fairly unrealted, but it irks me when one-line fixes like this sit for ages in backlog hell. I want a company where developers go "might as well fix that now, it's faster than writing a ticket for it".

I see people where I work not do this, and it drives me crazy. Our director of engineering will literally add tickets for himself to do things that would take less time to just do. At least I hear "I took a page from your book and messaged the person instead of adding a ticket for myself to message them" often, which is a good sign.

To be clear, I'm answering this purely from a personal standpoint and not talking about any particular employer, and this doesn't relate to this specific issue at all.

Yes, I totally agree. The point of processes is to enable a company to manage huge amounts of potential work. Sometimes, processes can get in the way of just doing the simple thing we all know needs to be done.

Buuuut, I've been on the other side of that, too. Someone asks me to make some change. Sure! That's a reasonable idea and it would improve things. Making the change would take about 20 minutes. However, 437 different systems expect that thing to have its current behavior, and updating them to use the new behavior would be quite the project. In a vacuum, the change is simple and shouldn't take long to implement. Not many things operate in a vacuum, though.

For example, it would take like 5 minutes to do a "find all" in the Nginx source code and fix the misspelling of "referrer" as "referer". It would take a lot longer to update the standards with the correct spelling, and every client and other server to use it, would be slightly more challenging.

Sure, but that's not what I'm talking about. That's not a change that takes 20 minutes, that's a change that takes years.

I'm talking about things like fixing a typo, where it literally takes multiple times the work to write the ticket than to grep for it, fix it, and push a PR.

Yeah, I hear ya. Sometimes people seem to do bookkeeping just for the sheer joy of bookkeeping, or something.

> Our director of engineering will literally add tickets for himself to do things that would take less time to just do

I've done this. It irks me too, but sometimes I'm in organizational mode, and sometimes I'm in execution mode. :)

Also, I work in an environment[0] where all work is required to go through the formal tracker documentation flow (and all code changes must be approved by a second party).

So the ticket step is non-optional, and in fact required before work can begin -- we name branches with the ticket ID, so that Pivotal[1] can track the GitHub lifecycle.

[0] PCI-DSS, SOC 2, etc

[1] RIP :(

Yeah, I guess if you're in a regulated environment, you have no choice. Most companies have no excuse, though!

No but it's a good question. Is it "out of two candidates with similar experience and salary requirements, companies will usually hire the younger one", or is it "companies don't want expensive experienced people because cheaper, less-experienced people are good enough"?

Correction: "pomodoro" means "tomato".

Thank you for the correction. It was a typo, but it’s unfortunately too late to edit the post.

No problem, I wasn't sure so I had to go looking, and I figured I'd post a correction for anyone who saw it.

The controller with two halves will be unusable. There will be nothing to hold the half steady while you try to hit buttons or move the stick.

Nintendo joycons beg to differ.

Most people have two hands

And in some ways it's even more "ergonomic", like a split keyboard.

I guess they've hit the limit, because the bot isn't responding for me.

10^4.5 = 31622.77

As an approximation, 10^0.5 = pi = 3, so $30k was what my mind immediately jumped to

Ah, the "and" ruins that joke for me by signifying a separate clause. I think the original is:

> A programmer gets sent to the store by his wife. His wife says, “Get a gallon of milk. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”