Actively trying to fight against this now. Crazy huge amount of tech debt with 3 separate rewrites inside one unified monolith repository. Management could only be convinced to let engineering move forward with features on a new platform so now we have periods of code for each rewrite that contain certain features.
With more disciplined engineers we are slowly cleaning it up but it is taking years to realize because management won’t allow work to be stopped on feature development. If we’re lucky, we get two sprints a year to fix things, usually around holidays when half the team is afk anyway so not a huge chunk can be fixed. Then on top of all of that, if you break something when trying to Boy Scout rule improve things, you get chastised and management clamps down more on “scope creep”.
Add in LLMs and now engineering management is convinced that they will solve our problems. Except it can’t really because the project is so spread out and disjointed that it’s impossible to reason about. You’d spend tens of dollars just to have it follow all possible branches of our most critical user flows (and then with hallucinations on top!).
I’m not saying the bots aren’t useful, but they cannot comprehend a disaster zone architecture in anything more than extremely targeted chunks. Without being able to see the entire thing, having it reliably refactor is just not possible without weeks of manual testing or taking a risk and being prepared to rollback on short notice. Writing tests would also take many weeks and if the point is to rearchitect to something sane, a snapshot test is not really going to cut it.
It’s a pickle of a problem for sure… and I’m not sure I will survive at this company long enough to see the end (though I’ve been here years already).
Sounds like you might work on a team with some agency to say no to management.
We have some and sometimes marketing comes back with some extra revenue from a partner if we build out feature X Y or Z for their new product launch. The contracts are signed so engineering has to do it or we’re blamed for lost revenue.
A few of those a year and you eventually end up in a similar situation.
Some people would argue that this is the best way to use AI as it exists today. Generate a POC and then if that POC makes sense, then rebuild it from scratch by hand. Maybe you can still use AI for a bit of boilerplate generation, but you should write all of the business logic and verify it by hand.
Personally, I'm starting to lean more and more towards this approach.
Though, I have to admit, for a well defined bug ticket, AI can be super useful to knock those out.
I find AI useful for boilerplate stuff, very generic code like mappers etc.
For more complex stuff, I find that the best workflow is usually treating AI like a kind of stupid, but very motivated intern you're pair programming with. Nothing unsupervised and you might have to touch up/do manually the really critical parts, but it can help with a lot of the bitchwork.
Hetzner seems to be a pretty good example. It wasn't solely because of EU regulation, but once GDPR made it a worthwhile investment to companies to segregate their data, European data centers have been growing steadily.
Fun fact but Central Market actually operates on the same margins as HEB. Their produce in particular is competitively priced. Where they get you however, is that all of their produce is jumbo sized. So yea, you have a competitive price on the apples per pound, but if you want 6 apples, they are on average going to be more than from HEB or a different supermarket.
Subtle, but it allows them to make some fun marketing claims!
And that the cause can be addressed by regulation. There's no regulation that will protect from bad actors so designing the system to cater to them in extremely specific ways just creates more red tape for normal people.
Said another way, mandating safer intersections will apply to all motorists and pedestrians equally when they interact with each other at a crossing, but if the bus driver forgets to take their crazy pills that morning and the voices in their head say to run someone over, there's no amount of safety systems or auto-stop that are likely to really prevent harm from being done.
In most Western European nations however, we are fully capable of designing and enforcing travel networks that should rarely produce fatalities when it comes to interactions between cars and pedestrians. The reason many countries don't is a matter of political will.
Many states have extra markings on the card for citizens vs legal residents. A valid birth certificate would also be enough since the US is one of the only nations to recognize birthright citizenship.
Also worth pointing out that most Americans don't have passports and getting one can take anywhere from 6 weeks to 6 months.
Also, you'd have to be smoking something to assume that the three letter agencies are not going to be combing through Anthropic's customer list and assessing for fraud and foreign bad-actors. If you lie, they'll probably catch you eventually and most people are not stupid enough to lie about their identity to the US government and think they'll get away with it forever.
I would maybe reframe it as fraud being a natural downstream effect of identity theft. I don't need to steal anyone's identity to forge a check but that's also categorized as fraud.
Identity theft also paints a clearer picture of what is required to remedy the situation. If your details have been pwnd hard enough, you might need to get new government documents entirely in order to protect yourself long term.
If a contractor takes my money to install a pool and then disappears, I don't need to reset my entire financial identity. I think it's worth having a separate idea to describe the situation as a whole and not just the specific vector in which a crime might have been committed.
> Identity theft also paints a clearer picture of what is required to remedy the situation. If your details have been pwnd hard enough, you might need to get new government documents entirely in order to protect yourself long term
Okay, but in the US (for example) you simply can’t do that, and your details are already available to everyone for a dollar or two.
I’ll concede that “identity theft” could conceivably have a reasonable meaning in the context of e.g. Estonian digital identities where you could in a sense steal someone’s private key.
> I’ll concede that “identity theft” could conceivably have a reasonable meaning in the context of e.g. Estonian digital identities where you could in a sense steal someone’s private key.
Stealing someone's private key still wouldn't be "identity theft", they'd just need to bootstrap a new key the same way they got the government to trust the previous one (and revoke the old one).
It's just victim-blaming and PR attempting to make companies not liable for their bad decisions.
Depends on the tool. We (mac people) tend to prefer native toolbars and settings menus, but I would say the days of relying on a "native" textarea or button are now behind us.
The other thing I find most Mac people appreciate is a shared understanding of hotkeys and if your app goes against the norm, one of the first feature requests will be to add configurable hotkey support.
Unfortunately, Apple has dropped the ball with their newest native apps in regards to UX and it will take years for them to go back and improve things. The new OS this fall is aiming to start that process, but it will still be a band-aid in some respect.
That's how most raytracing is done these days anyway. The game is rendered at a much lower resolution, the raytracing math is applied, and then it is upsampled to the target resolution.
If you set the target resolution to 1080p, not much changes in the render pipeline except the that final upscaling step. To get better quality, the lower resolution is bumped up so there is more data to work with for the upsampling, but the scaling performance can be very hit or miss depending on the game as the engine itself often can play a huge role in rendering performance.
As far as rendering the 1080p image at 4k, yea it works fine, but there will always be little artefacts that remain for those looking for them. 1440p seems to be the sweet spot for gamers today, but 4k is really nice for when you're not gaming as most online video is now made for dual use on televisions.
With more disciplined engineers we are slowly cleaning it up but it is taking years to realize because management won’t allow work to be stopped on feature development. If we’re lucky, we get two sprints a year to fix things, usually around holidays when half the team is afk anyway so not a huge chunk can be fixed. Then on top of all of that, if you break something when trying to Boy Scout rule improve things, you get chastised and management clamps down more on “scope creep”.
Add in LLMs and now engineering management is convinced that they will solve our problems. Except it can’t really because the project is so spread out and disjointed that it’s impossible to reason about. You’d spend tens of dollars just to have it follow all possible branches of our most critical user flows (and then with hallucinations on top!).
I’m not saying the bots aren’t useful, but they cannot comprehend a disaster zone architecture in anything more than extremely targeted chunks. Without being able to see the entire thing, having it reliably refactor is just not possible without weeks of manual testing or taking a risk and being prepared to rollback on short notice. Writing tests would also take many weeks and if the point is to rearchitect to something sane, a snapshot test is not really going to cut it.
It’s a pickle of a problem for sure… and I’m not sure I will survive at this company long enough to see the end (though I’ve been here years already).
reply