I can feel my hand cramping just looking at this.

😆

Nah. It doesn’t say not to plan. It says to prefer responding to change over planning. Which means both happen but responding to change is more crucial. Or put another way don’t let your plan get in the way of responding to change.

I’m sure you were being sarcastic, but I get kind of tired of the Agile strawman and people shitting on it. It’s not a complex philosophy yet people extrapolate so much (too much) and then get annoyed when their assumptions don’t pan out well. even performing sprints is an extrapolation, so this meme gets it wrong too.

deleted by creator

I was expecting something more profound. Isn’t this just the concept of using variables to keep code readable? Not a new concept and likely one most devs learn early on.

Well there’s also just a lot more games now, and even retro games that have been around are competing (I’m playing RE1 for example, bought it recently cuz I’ve never played it before)

So I don’t think it’s intrinsically due to other life costs being high. When you have games like battlebit and palworld and lots of ftp games just saturating the market it’s hard to justify charging so much. People literally don’t have the lifespan to play all the games that exist and will continue to be created over time.

So that you can self host I think

Damn… This should be the sidebar rules for all of the Internet. Bravo.

i hate how popular it’s become to hate on AI amongst people who know little to nothing about it.

I completely agree, but the inverse is also true:

I hate how popular it’s become to depend on AI amongst people who know little to nothing about it.

Honestly the article is actually dissing the people, not the technology. It’s about a dude who has no other contributions to society just wanting to absorb in AI tech and rely on it for literally everything.

I’m an AI enthusiast, but I absolutely do not have the same perspective on it being used in that way. To me, they are picking on a subculture of incel/antisocial humans who want to use AI as a crutch, which doesn’t really make any sense, which is why they’re idiots.

That said I think you may be right about the strawman. I mean, I personally haven’t met anyone obsessed with AI like the onion dude is described. Could be a made up persona, but with the way tech companies are going I don’t think so.

I feel like this is inevitable with any new tech. Social media, cryptocurrency, instant messaging, the Internet itself. ML is the new kid that people want to use any way possible to make money, until they realize as you said it can only help in so many situations.

More often than not a nice sql query and some programming gets the job done.

I don’t think it’ll stay this way forever, just a lot of annoying hype atm, but I don’t fault the technology itself for that.

I actually did an ML project at my job, much to my chagrin, to develop a chat app that lets us ask questions about our product.

It actually turned out really cool and was dead simple to implement. Now our employees (customer service team esp) can ask questions with a “trust but verify” approach to solve customer problems and surface information quickly. Saves a lot of time otherwise spent sifting thru documentation and support articles.

I don’t see the value of space stuff right now and don’t understand why humanity has a hard on for it so much.

Eventually, yes. For now, I’d prefer a focus on world peace and fixing the climate.

THEN, once humanity is standing strong and our own earth is taken care of, move on to space.

Counterarguments will not take into account the (im)practicality of space faring and what it can offer to our species. Sure, some of us may colonize mars eventually, but the billions on earth will still be on earth. And the earth is worth salvaging and in a much better place to salvage than fucking mars.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t have research into space, just that we should temper the investment to match the return we get, for now. Going to the moon is not an example of tempered investing. Of course, that said, I don’t blame India for doing it. I just personally find it impractical and ineffective.

As a full stack I feel capable of serving as an architect on a team. I am not sure if I could feel that way if I only honed in on one area.

So I think at least one full stack (architect) kind of person on a team is certainly beneficial.

As far as an entire team of full stacks? I’m sure that would be effective but it may cost a lot of money to have all that talent, where perhaps some tasks could have been done by a non-FS. Also there is the issue where specialization is needed in a certain area, and FS usually don’t offer that.

So I don’t think it would be a mistake, but it may not be as optimal as having a mixed bag where you have a handful of full stacks and then some dedicated FE and BE folks.

To answer your questions:

Do they work: yes

My experience: I’m biased, but I prefer working with full stacks because they get the “big picture” more often. This does translate to a smoother development flow most of the time.

Team size/xp: yes. I work with 2 other full stacks, and then we have some dedicated data engineers, a dedicated FE, and a dedicated data analyst.

Increase/decrease in quality: almost certainly there is a decrease on the FE side because full stacks are thinking about everything. Oftentimes the FE will get “good enough” and we’ll move on. I’ve seen dedicated FE people put a lot more care and attention than I would. However, for the BE I haven’t noticed any decrease in quality vs a dedicated BE.

Actually to address the FE quality issue we’ve arrived at a process whereby the FS builds the full experience and gets it looking mostly good and completely functional, then we pass it off to our dedicated FE person to polish. The polish involves making things look better, responsive, accessible, and ensure legibility. These are things I could do as a FS, but I prefer to lean on the dedicated FE person so I can move onto other things. It’s a system that works really well tbh because the FE person doesn’t have to start from scratch or think about the programming as much, and the FS can still get the FE development done without time sinking the nitty gritty. It’s a win-win.

Increase/decrease in product cohesion: full stacks intrinsically keep the stack cohesive, and that to me is part of the main benefit (see earlier statement regarding the architect role). This translates to the product as features are developed. Often we get a more maintainable system than if a BE and FE got together to agree on an API interface, both may be making concessions to the other that a full stack could work through in their own head and sort out quickly and more effectively.

Screw the Olympics anyway.

Browser compatibility. Design flaws can’t easily be fixed like how other languages can just switch to a new major version and introduce breaking changes. ES must keep backwards compatibility so has had to do more additive changes than replacing behavior altogether so that older web pages pages don’t break.

Come now…

I absolutely love using git on the command line. I’m comfortable with the commands, and there isn’t much need for clicking since a lot of it is just typing commands, viewing files/diffs, repeat until files are staged, committed, and pushed up. Who needs a GUI for that?

OTOH, I really like postman for constructing and templating network requests. There are a few helpful panes and forms that just fit better on one screen that I can interact with.

To say working with GUIs makes someone a worse engineer sounds very short sighted to me. IMO the best engineers are the ones who use tools that maximize their efficiency.

I’m glad you brought this up. So my brother tried this and had limited success with it, which made me dismiss the thiught. I love the idea but I’m worried because I like board games but I’m not a “nerd” with them. Do you think I would fit in if I was more of a casual board gamer?