> I am missing something, what is being said that signals incompetence?
You could start at the first quoted remark: "If you go forward 24 months from now, or some amount of time — I can't exactly predict where it is — it's possible that most developers are not coding."
1. Doesn't seem to demonstrate understanding of what developers actually do.
2. Poor understanding of the limitations of the technology he's talking about.
3. Totally unrealistic timeline.
4. The kind of claim that has been made countless times, about countless technologies, and has never panned out yet. That doesn't mean it won't ever pan out, but it means it warrants a huge amount of skepticism.
OK fair enough. There was some salesmanship and exaggeration going on for sure, but I thought the follow up quote clarified what he meant, or at least the way I read it, which is that code assistants will significantly reduce the amount of boilerplate coding that users are having to write by hand, which will give engineers more time to spend on the design part of the job. I didn't read this as saying your job is not safe because AI is coming, but maybe I am looking at this with tinted lenses
At a very basic level, the only way the CEO could say most developers would be replaced is if he has not used state of the art code assistants. It’s either a lack of understanding the role of a developer, or of machine learning, or both.
And last time I checked AWS’ AI assistant won’t even handle IAM policies. So at least those jobs should be safe.
This is really cool! Found a small bug - when you add a second card, the second card displays a pill with the total time difference between the first card and second card. When you switch the order of the cards by dragging, the pill remains on the same card so it's basically showing the total time difference in reverse. Clearing the cards and starting over with the switched order but by creating each card again results in the pill being displayed on the correct card.
can you share more details about what's breaking? Is it a specific integration? Is it in general? What breaks? This is not consistent with most users' experience but it's hard to know without more specifics.
Wow, have a little heart why don't you. Sure, this isn't going to revolutionize anti-poaching, but it shows two things:
1. Teenagers can build cool things too! We need more kids interested in STEM and females are underrepresented, so these "puff" pieces are great inspiration for the next kid who happens to come across it.
2. All that was needed for her solution was a cheap FLIR camera connected to an iPhone 6, meaning you don't have to be rich/VC funded to experiment with hardware solutions.
This is Smithsonian Magazine, not the Wall Street Journal. I say bring on more stories like this!
There's not a hell of a lot of value in a constant barrage of hyperbolic articles telling us that the world has changed.
It's about as useful as parents telling their kids that they're the best and smartest that the world has ever seen, only to have reality tear the carpet from under their feet.
You can be encouraging and realistic at the same time.
They're not denigrating the kid, they're denigrating hapless journalists looking for clicks.
However as opposed to most articles of this type, this one isn't as "THIS IS GONNA BE WORLD CHANGING!!!!!" and more "look at this cool thing this kid did" which is so much more acceptable, especially if it helps get more _people_ (no matter who they are) into STEM.
I took down all cellular data traffic in Philadelphia for 2 hours.
I wrote the operating procedures for performing a backhaul upgrade in preparation for the launch of LTE. The upgrade was being performed on our primary routers which all traffic traversed. The operation had been performed several times successfully, but after the last implementation before the issue, I was informed that a couple of the lines were wrong (they had extra arguments). I did a find and replace all, shot the document off to the next team, and went about my day. The technician who was doing the upgrade called me on the afternoon of the upgrade (it was a Sunday) and asked if any of the initial steps were disruptive as he wanted to get started on the prep work ahead of the maintenance window. I said no and he proceeded. Mind you, this was also during the World Cup so I was out at a bar with my friends and not paying attention to my phone. About two hours later I looked at my phone and had multiple missed calls and voicemails from him, so I immediately ran to the MTSO. Turns out my find and replace changed some commands - the end result was that instead of adding additional VLANs to in-use interfaces, it replaced all of them with the new ones, which weren't carrying any traffic.
The fix was simple, we had failover routers and at some point after he couldn't get in touch with me the technician reached out to one of my peers who quickly told him to failover. He should have known to do that but he was also panicking. I called my boss and told him what happened and that it was my fault (and I genuinely believed it was. I wrote the bad procedure AND I approved activities outside of the maintenance window), and he told me to be at the office with the technician first thing in the morning the next day.
I couldn't sleep that night, this was early on in my career and I thought it was over. But that meeting ended up being one of the most transformative moments of my career. My boss's boss, a director, quoted the FAA's ethos of how a good system should have checks and balances, and if a mistake happens, the system is at fault, not any individual. We walked through the play by play and identified multiple opportunities to both avoid the issue that arose and to resolve the issue more quickly. We came up with an action plan as to how to make sure our "system" was more mistake proof for next time, and that was that.
That meeting has always stuck with me, and I always remind myself of that conversation whenever things at work don't go as planned. There is almost always something in the system that can be improved to account for human error, which should be expected.
Do you have any evidence to back up the claim that “a significant portion of the DC population constantly thinks someone is out to get them”? Admittedly anecdotal but I live in DC and I wouldn’t characterize myself or anyone I know in the area that way
Being the center of political and military power means a lot of people have to constantly worry that their political and geopolitical enemies are trying to get one over on them. I'm not saying they're like Dale Gribble, but a certain part of them is professionally paranoid.
We disagree on what constitutes a "significant portion of the population" means then. Even at 1% of the population fitting that description would be ~50,000 people, meaning 3 of them with weird symptoms would not be surprising.
