companies don’t build for users, they build for the shareholders. and the shareholders don’t use what companies build, nor do they talk to users.
i don’t know how to fix this, but framing the challenge this way has given me ideas and decisions to consider vs fully losing hope which many of us have exhaustively been fighting.
I stumbled across this post while looking for our workbook and omg! What a very thoughtful and understanding summary of our code review anxiety paper, model, and takeaways. I don't know this person to tag them but 👏👏👏
@mononcqc@RainofTerra@CSLee@grimalkina this. The first steps on that path seems to be scary for people (something to study maybe, fear of losing control) but once you get there, you realise how much is done and feel a bit less lonely.
I would read the hell out of a deep analysis of the many layers (internal, external, technical, personal, systemic, etc., etc.) that have combined to make early Google so arguably less dumb than early OpenAI.
It isn’t just rose colored glasses, right? There was no equivalent of the shareholder coup, the ScarJo voice thing, etc.?
This is probably the easiest path to hosting a website right now.
S3-compatible bucket, built-in CDN. Generous free tier. And if you want to do anything dynamic your files are already in-house with Fly.
One thing I think about a lot is "how much time should this organisation spend making tools to help with its main software tasks?" Experience has taught me that most invest far too little in this, but I've struggled to find a good way of defining what "too much" might look like.
i used to be impressed with cute syntactical constructs that would let you express things far more efficiently in programming languages but tbh over the last decade or so ive gone from that to "if your syntax noticeably diverges from basic C-style stuff then you've fucked up, simple syntax is best because sugar is bad for you"
"Each assemblage gains emergent properties produced from interactions between its components and relies on those interactions to continue existing. For instance, a tight- knit neighbourhood can build a collective memory about the reputation of all of its members and develop norms to promote prosocial behaviour. "
I still remember Dave Woods explaining that newcomers to the psychology department are told to not talk to him, as they would get, I quote, "infected by him".
We are the Renegades, as he says. Well. Tough luck but this is proper science and we will keep doing it. I am not exactly an academic partially due to all of this but.... Yeaaah.
It's REALLY weird to me when people in software mine research papers for their content and say "researchers" instead of naming the scientists who actually did the work they're using. We're human beings and our work is our livelihood (at a fraction of yours I might add). Name us.
Blessed for the community around me that has this value, side eye at the content engine that doesn't.
@mlinksva@luis_in_brief@grimalkina@glyph something to keep in mind is that there is probably a natural attraction, if presented with the choice, to say "oh attribution would be nice".
But that does not mean there is a loss feeling if the attribution does not happen.
I know for my own work, attribution would maybe make me happy a bit but in practice... Meh? Who cares?