refefer

Seems to be getting a lot of review flack recently around bans; I take it there are a lot of false positives?

A lot of the industry has finally learned that investment in the most realistic graphics doesn't offset lack of fun. I credit indie studios the most for that

I get it, both your and his perspectives. At the end of the day, I think there is still some alignment: you probably both want to do more with less. For you, I suspect you wouldn't mind avoiding the tedious boilerplate that comes with many projects. For him, greater efficiency of delivery without risking burn out of his reports.

With any technological innovation, there's a period of adoption where everyone tries to understand where it should slot into the world; this time is no different. All the traits that made you successful are still relevant, and with some creativity, you might find these technologies are able to automate large portions of the work which you don't find engaging, freeing you up to focus on your strengths.

Meh, federated or defederated, threads poses only the first challenge to the fediverse. There will be other players with their own incentives that will join via ActivityPub, add their own custom features incompatible with the broader world, and entice users with slicker interfaces. Fediverse will need to show it can weather it, especially hard with the network effects of the larger corporations' user bases.

My hope is the pressure will keep open services innovating to better compete and result in a richer experience for everyone.

Good resources, thanks for sharing. LLMs are becoming less niche by the minute so I wouldn't be surprised if this post had some staying power.

Not feeling good about Betts' chances, that's for sure.

It really depends on the company. I'm in upper management and have had to move ICs within org and across org to account for ET level strategic changes. It doesn't happen often at my company, but it's never easy for the folks who end up getting shuffled; when reorging, you really want to move teams, not people. You can tell a lot about your leadership on whether or not they acknowledge the impact on people's lives; high EQ is incredibly important for long term happiness of your teams and that starts with empathizing with your teams when decisions are made.

It sounds like your product team had mission/roadmap issues. You can absolutely expect teams that are unable to find consensus in a direction within team or with senior leadership to be put on a clock before they're material impacted. Similarly if they are unable to produce value with their roadmap. You will be on teams like this in the future as well.

All this is to say that it should be a rare occurrence in general, but often enough in your career you'll get familiar with the process. I have noticed companies which are struggling are more prone to the shuffle.

I do want to say this change, while disruptive, can present new opportunities. You've already called out the importance of the role extending beyond coding which is wonderful to embrace. It's relatively easy to work with long established colleagues and typically miles harder to build a rapport from scratch with a new team. Getting good at meshing/norming with new people is a critical skill for everyone to develop and will pay dividends at many junctions in your career. Similarly, exposure to new ideas and thinking can help break up echo chambers which all of us seem to run into at one point or another. If nothing else, you'll learn a lot about how orgs influence outcomes and how investments are made (whether you agree with their decision making or not.)

Good luck!

You reminded me of a deeply amusing story of solving the 4 queens problem with just the type system.

Another lump for the red sox

I can certainly see the trade-offs. I typically write high performance optimizers, so my dependency list is fairly compact; the big risk I see in general, without knowing anything of you application, is bug fixes or quality of life improvements. Those that manifest as full version bumps are fairly insidious with '*', and can make porting to the future a potential nightmare.

All that said, there's something nice about using a fixed version of common crates to develop against. One of the big advantages of languages like Python and Go is that robust stdlib which makes many tasks trivial to program assuming a wide enough coverage of libraries.