> Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it.

It's worse than that. It might not be you who has to debug it, but someone else. Maybe after you left the company already. Maybe at 3AM after a pager alert in production ..

The company made a choice, conscious or not, to not keep that talent in-house.

Talent? Not if it was someone who was adding unnecessary complexity to the codebase.

The company often does/did not get to make the choice, at least in my case.

Data does back up this assertion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43933580

The correlation seems to point to usage ground water that is contaminated with pesticides. So people living close to the golf courses have higher Parkinson risk. Probably golfers and employees less so.

There is no causation. Your bias is showing.

What else uses massive amounts of pesticides and herbicides and is consumed by people every day?

There is so much evidence of this connection piling up ..

E.g.:

Proximity to golf courses where pesticides are used -> Parkinson: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43933580

Farmers using pesticides have 60% higher Parkinson risk (2019): https://nos.nl/artikel/2302396-landbouwgif-kan-kans-op-parki... (Dutch)

Parkinson should be labeled as profession-linked disease for farmers(Swiss): https://www.srf.ch/news/schweiz/pestizide-als-krankmacher-pa...

You're conflating different chemicals together.

Paraquat (what this article is about), isn't used by any people in the links you gave (golf courses, Dutch or Swiss farmers).

parkinsons might have multiple causes.

https://www.wired.com/story/scientists-thought-parkinsons-wa...

Each of which must be studied, and legislated, on its own.

> I've had Claude Code write an entire unit/integration test suite in a few hours (300+ tests) for a fairly complex internal tool.

And what do you have then? 300 tests that test the behavior that's exposed by the implementations of the api. Are they useful? Probably some are, probably some are not. The ones that are not will just be clutter and maintenance overhead. Plus, there will be lots of use-cases for which you need to look a little deeper than just the api implementation, which are now not covered. And those kind of tests, tests that test real business use cases, are by far the most useful ones if you want to catch regressions.

So if your goal is to display some nice test coverage metrics on SonarQube or whatever, making your CTO happy, yes AI will help you enormously. But if your goal is to speed up development of useful test cases, less so. You will still gain from AI, but nowhere near 90%.

Very nice. But posts about Rust and Zig won't make the frontpage anymore of course in 10 years from now, they will be soooo old fashioned.

Rust won't be old fashioned, it will be vintage.

C posts still make the front page here and there

And it still will in 10 years.

Wow I've only stayed in about 100 but have seen several. There are several variations:

- bathrooms with glass walls but with (glass) door

- bathrooms with walls but without door

- bathrooms with partially open walls, sometimes even with door :P

The worst was when I was once sharing a room with my daughter and the bathroom was one with glass walls and no shower curtain. We decided to schedule our toilet visits and showers so the other one would not be in the room.

The writing style of the article reeks of AI. It seems to tell a lot at first but at closer inspection tells almost nothing.

That's just how modern journalists write, they need a minimum word count to insert ads, the AI probably learnt it from them.

agree

Exactly this. Not just large software projects tend to fail often; also large architectural and infrastructure projects do. There are loads of examples, one famous one for instance is the Berlin Airport.

Management is bad at managing large projects. Whatever those projects are. In particular when third parties are involved that have a financial interest.

Yes it looks like he does. And I don't see why not. The fact that their products become deprecated, gives even more incentive to manufacturers to want long term contracts.

There is this:

> CPU Specific Instructions

> If you do not care about the compatibility of your binary on older (or other types of) processors, you can tell the compiler to generate the newest (and potentially fastest) instructions specific to a certain CPU architecture, such as AVX SIMD instructions for x86-64 CPUs.

> To request these instructions from the command line, use the -C target-cpu=native flag