Yes. For someone who’s already financially comfortable, it’s nice to be able to stay in the game, keep working with great people, and make some money without having to deal with burnout.
Lots of people in tech like their jobs; they just like other things too. Personally I don’t know why I would want to stop working completely. It sounds boring. I love to build. Why ever stop?
I'm not yet financially comfortable, but once I am, this is definitely how I see my life going. I love my work, but I don't love the job, I've gotten burned out too many times.
For people who want some more freedom with their time, part time is ideal. I want to have more time to experiment and learn. Currently there is just no time for it.
Claude code does utilize both the full Sonnet model and the lighter Haiku model in an automatic way. When you exit a Claude code session, it gives you the stats (tokens, cost, etc). I expect there’s a way to get this in-session as well.
That is fun. But this one truly is enough: Turing Complete. You start with boolean logic gates and progressively work your way up to building your own processor, create your own assembly language, and use it to do things like solve mazes and more. Super duper fun
In the US, “Junior” pilots typically work as flight instructors until they have built up enough time to no longer be junior. 1500 flight hours is the essential requirement to be an airline pilot, and every hour spent giving instruction counts as a flight hour. It’s not the only way, but it’s the most common way. Airlines don’t fund this; pilots have to work their way up to this level themselves.
The 1500 hour rule was instituted by congress at the request of pilots unions not the FAA or any other regulator. Europe only requires 250 hours and has a similar aviation safety track record to the US in the 21st century.
I feel the same way about code generation vs code review. Everyone knows there are deep problems with LLM generated code (primarily, lack of repo understanding, and proper use of library functions).
Deep, accurate, real-time code review could be of huge assistance in improving quality of both human- and AI-generated code. But all the hype is focused on LLMs spewing out more and more code.
In my experience working on JB extensions, Rider is the most different of the IDEs. Most people think of just IntelliJ and that’s the same code base as eg PyCharm. But Rider seems substantially different.
The biggest difference between the language-specific IDEs in my experience is how they expose the project structure, with GoLand, PyCharm, etc. providing a much more directory centric workflow while Rider by nature has to work around .sln and .*proj files.
But Rider is uniquely weird in its use of ReSharper for code analysis.
If you were to design a modern way to solve this problem, you wouldn't end up with a pile of nineteen sixties era equipment and some very stressed ATC people and pilots trying to communicate over a noisy VHF radio channel.
The challenge:
- electrical planes are coming and are going to cause an influx of pilots who can now afford to own and fly their planes. Teslas with wings basically. Cheap to buy, cheap to fly, lower noise, no emissions, what's not to like? It will take some time but early versions of these things are being certified right now. The 100$ hamburger run becomes a 5$ coffee run. It's going to have obvious effects: more people will want to get in on the fun. Way more people.
- a lot of those things will be used to fly medium distances for work in bad weather; which creates an obvious need for some level of ATC interaction.
- Likewise, cheaper/sustainable commercial short hops are going to increase traffic movements.
- Autonomous drones and planes are going to be part of the mix of traffic ATC has to factor in. Autonomous operation is key to operating safely. Especially in low visibility situations. Shuttle flights between city centers and terminals, short local hops, package deliveries, aerial surveillance, etc. On top of regular planes with way smarter auto pilots than today. The volume of this traffic will be orders of magnitudes of what ATC deals with today.
There's some time to prepare for this. Certification processes move slowly. But a lot of this stuff is being experimented with right now at small scale or stuck in the certification pipeline already. We're long past the "will it work" moment for most of this stuff. Technically, this would be happening right now if the FAA would allow it. They'll be fighting a losing battle to slow this down and delay the inevitable here. But the end result is that ATC needs to be ready for orders of magnitude more movement in their controlled air spaces. And right now they clearly aren't.
In short, all this requires new, modern tools. It's obvious. Training more ATC people to do things the way we have been doing them for the last 50 years is not a good plan for the next 50. It's a stop gap solution at best. With a very short shelf life.
I am in the sector, I develop ATC software. It is not rocket science (which was also solved with money actually) you can actually solve ATC with more money.
As a (non-commercial) pilot it's honestly infuriating watching people who have never tried to fly a plane, never tried to locate and identify another aircraft from the air, and never controlled (or even sat with a controller or toured a tower, tracon, or center) make these claims and statements about how easy these problems they don't understand are to fix as if they're experts on the topic.
A lot of naive uninformed people who had no expertise and were told by experts how they could never contribute to a problem or field have successfully built businesses funded by the very people who created this community.
Lots of people in tech like their jobs; they just like other things too. Personally I don’t know why I would want to stop working completely. It sounds boring. I love to build. Why ever stop?