partial_accumen

That will backfire on employers. With the shortage of seniors with good skills, the demand will rise for them. An employer that squeezes his seniors will find them quitting because there will be another desperate employer that will treat them better.

But inexperienced coders will start to use LLMs a lot earlier than the experienced ones do now.

And unlike you that can pick out a bad method or approach just by looking at the LLM output where you correct it, the inexperienced coder will send the bad code right into git if they can get it to pass a unit test.

I get your point, but I guess the learning patterns for junior devs will just be totally different while the industry stays open for talent.

I have no idea what the learning path is going to look like for them. Besides personal hobby projects to get experience, I don’t know who will give them a job when what they produce from their first efforts will be the “bad coder” output that gets replaced by an LLM and a senior dev.

At least I hope it will and it will not only downsize to 50% of the human workforce.

I’ve thought about this many times, and I’m just not seeing a path for juniors. Given this new perspective, I’m interested to hear if you can envision something different than I can. I’m honestly looking for alternate views here, I’ve got nothing.

It won’t replace good coders but it will replace bad ones because the good ones will be more efficient

Here’s where we just start touching on the second order problem. Nobody starts as a good coder. We start making horrible code because we don’t know very much, and though years of making mistakes we (hopefully) improve, and become good coders.

So if AI “replaces bad ones” we’ve effectively ended the pipeline for new coders to enter the workforce. This will be fine for awhile as we have two to three generations of coders that grew up (and became good coders) prior to AI. However, that most recent generation that was pre-AI is that last one. The gate is closed. The ladder pulled up. There won’t be any more young “bad ones” that grow up into good ones. Then the “good ones” will start to die off or retire.

Carried to its logical conclusion, assuming nothing else changes, then there aren’t any good ones, nor will there every be again.

So something that would be helpful would be some kind of “re-entry program”? Something that says “hey its X date now. These days here’s what’s available to you and what is expected of you generally as any random person, as a worker, as a member of a family”. Something like that or something else?

I would guess the length of incarceration would also change the content of it too. Folks that have been outside society longer will need more guidance to get up-to-date.

21 months ago, so since about March 09, 2024?

I started to write things out and its all bad news. I’m struggling to come up with anything good that has happened since then. Hmm, the movie Wicked (the first one) was pretty good. So, I guess thats about all the good news.

EDIT: Apologies if this isn’t a welcome topic, you can ignore me if it is. As someone rejoining us, can you tell me what your needs are? I have often held the thought that those that just finished serving time may be some of the most ignored/neglected. I don’t know if that’s true though. What are the needs of someone in your position and what kind of help do you wish existed to make it easier?

Ruby was the most approachable language I found and sheparded me from my limits of bash scripting and Windows batch file scripting into the next level.

The author derides Ruby’s easy readability and syntax because it has issues scaling to large enterprise applications. I don’t disagree there is a performance ceiling, but how many hundreds of thousands of Ruby projects never rose to that level of need? The author is also forgetting that Ruby had Rubygems for easy modular functional additions years before Python eventually got pip.

I don’t write in Ruby anymore, and Python has evolved to be much more approachable than it was when Ruby was in its prime, however if someone came to me today saying they wanted the easier programming language to learn that could build full applications on Linux, OSX, Windows, and the web, I’d still point them to Ruby with the caveat that it would have limits and they would be better served by Python in the long run.

with the same razor

“we’re blood brothers here. We share bloodborn diseases between each other this way. Hepatitis A is for Alphas.” /s

I planted milkweed in the back yard for the Monarch butterflies which are native.

At the 1 hour mark:

Well, you’d then have another problem. Unlike coal/wood/oil fuel, you can’t turn off radioactive decay.

You’d have megawatts (gigawatts?) of thermal energy boiling off all your water pretty quickly, and likely eventually melting down your steam engine firebox, and it would be that hot for decades!

if we stuck a suitably shaped non-critical amount of plutonium in the firebox.

Non-critical? There isn’t much energy released from natural decay compared to criticality. We created things like this to power space probes like the Voyager I and II craft. 4.5kg of this Plutonium created about 2500w of thermal energy the the beginning of its life and the power declines from there.

source

Hydro isn’t. Nor is solar photo voltaic, wind, or tidal, but yeah, nearly everything else is. In a combined-cycle natural gas or diesel plant half of the power generated isn’t steam power, but the other half is.

I can’t image how well the technical components can hold up.

I recently got back from the Smithsonian affiliate Atomic Testing Museum. Two things caught my eye in the exhibits that gave me a similar realization about Russian nuclear readiness.

#1 The USA is currently undergoing a nuclear warhead modernization program refurbishing the existing inventory of nuclear warheads and the result of this “will extend the life of the warhead by as much as 25 to 30 years”. I understand this to mean that the useful life of a nuclear warhead sitting on the shelf is less than 30 years. That means nearly 100% of the warheads that were ready to use when I was born are now non-viable, unless they’ve undergone refurbishment sometime in my lifetime.

#2 at its peak count, the USA has had about 31,000 nuclear warheads at one time. Over the many years since, that number has been reduced to about 2,500 in inventory right now. There are an additional 2000 warheads that are not considered “ready to go” that are schedule to be dismantled and disposed of.

The treaties reducing nuclear warhead stockpiles wasn’t about peace, it was about cost! The US government, even with its incredibly high budgets decided to drop from 31,000 warheads to just 2500 because they are just so expensive to maintain, which it has carried on with the maintenance of the warhead.

Now, Russia has just a tiny fraction of the USA’s military budget, and much more corruption. What are the chance any of Russian’s warhead have been maintained? If the USA’s warheads only have a 30 year shelf life, and Russia’s are the same, that would mean that an unmaintained warhead would have had to be be built in the early 1990s (right when the Soviet Union was collapsing), which doesn’t seem likely.

This leads me to guess that the vast majority of Russia’s current warhead stockpile probably don’t work!

Oh great, so another unregistered foreign agent working a trump administration.

We know that Northrop bought back two unused Pegasus rockets from Stratolaunch. Do we know if this upcoming launch is the first or the last one of those?

I’m not an aerospace engineer, but I would guess that lots of compromises are built into today’s crewed fighter aircraft as compromises for the human body inside it. This can be as simple as extra armor around the fuselage to protect the pilot from flak, but this armor is heavy subtracting from the range and agility of the aircraft.

I’m also betting that lots of limits are placed upon the design of the aircraft around the 9Gs-10Gs a human body could take for a very short amount of time. Think of the agility and turn radius of an aircraft that could take 12G to 18G maneuvers in the course of a regular day when the design of the aircraft removes the limits of a human body needs to survive.

Lastly the airframe itself is larger than needed for uncrewed if you’re able to subtract the cockpit, canopy, ejection seat systems, environmental system that keep a pilot able to breath and from freezing to death or roasting alive. All of that removed weight means either more weight for weapons payload, longer range from more available fuel, or a smaller aircraft that is cheaper to build, store, and deploy.

Antonov could be the company that skips all the human pilot stuff and putting all that energy and effort into building a superior aircraft without the human pilot limitations.

Sure, but Ukraine could simply buy those crewed aircraft that already exist today instead of reinventing the wheel.

I’m saying other already have fully developed crewed fighter/bomber/interceptor aircraft. Simply buy those. If Ukraine is developing domestic aircraft for those roles, uncrewed version are unserved/underserved market. Ukraine has unique knowledge for drones. They could become the creator/exporter for that technology to other nations instead of pouring lots of effort into duplicating crewed fighters that other nations already build well they could buy from instead.

BTW you missed a colon at the end of your if statement on line 341. Also you used irregular whitespace on another line, but I’ll let you find that one yourself, as a treat.

Also, I’d be pretty interested to see what Antonov pivots into in the coming decade or two

Given Ukraine’s domestic success with building and operating drones for warfare, I hope Antonov skips human piloted fighter/bomber aircraft altogether. Its a dead end technology. Ukraine is wise buying European domestically produced aircraft which gives them nations with a vested interest in Ukraine’s success over the long term against China’s future vassal state of the Russian Frontier.