CrLf

Only for a very narrow definition of career.

If you have to ask, it doesn't exist.

I believe we're still needed, because AI has no "want", no intrinsic motivation, therefore no real sense of alignment with real-word goals. Without us humans in the loop, the industry would become self-drinking beer.

Whether or not the folks with the money agree with this is another issue...

It doesn't have to mean abandoning this career. For example, if you used to program because you love the details and the control, doing the same with LLMs and pretend it is still about details and control will make you miserable.

But you might be able to choose to leave that to others, and fill some other role in the development process where you don't have to pretend.

It will still be with LLMs, though.

Grief is exactly what many engineers (not just programmers) are going through right now. They (we) are going through the process of coming to terms with the death of something we loved - not a transformation, but death - and figuring out what comes after that.

This isn't about having trouble adapting to change, because many engineers going through this are adapting just fine as far as others can observe, adopting LLMs, changing the way they work and whatnot.

The grief comes from either that new normal being something they don't identify with anymore, or that new normal being just... different. The former will inevitably prolong the grief, while the latter will eventually result in the grief subsiding (even though some sadness for what was lost will never really disappear).

We're being asked to adapt, but perhaps we should just accept that things are not going back to what they were, look around, and decide not to do the things we used to love in a new way that we cannot love. Others might not even notice we chose that path, and think we just "adapted".

Does this make sense?

I don't see anyone getting offended. People are allowed to disagree and dislike, and argue in a civilized manner, which is what I do see.

You're free to read it as nationalism if you like, although I 'm very far from being nationalist, and I'd prefer if my paper money didn't provide fuel for nationalism.

The European project has worked all these years because it stands on the idea that we are all europeans with shared values, but also different countries with our own cultures. We are all the same yet different. The Euro banknotes (even though the Euro and the EU aren't the same thing) should represent that, not look like some specific nation's currency, which is what faces (any face no matter the personality) evokes.

PS: Perhaps paradoxically, the faces on Euro coins are a good idea (I like having my wallet populated with coins from different countries), for the same reason they're a bad idea on notes.

Your last question is something to consider in the current context of rising nationalism, which is all about the perception of being left out (even in the larger countries, where that perception is about each other).

I'm europeist (but no longer a federationist after the cooperation debacle that was the eurocrisis) and I have no issue with the choice of personalities.

I do have an issue with anything that might be interpreted as the proposals of some countries having had more weight that others.

There's a reason why the current Euro banknotes represent bridges that do not exist in the real world.

It's not a matter of protesting (nor is it a matter of nationalism).

It's a matter of bureocrats remembering that there are more countries in the eurozone than banknotes, and even if that wasn't the case, their denominations can be read as hierarchy.

Faces on Euro banknotes are a terrible idea. Even internationally well-known personalities are associated with certain countries, and you do not put things that represent specific countries on banknotes used in different countries.

The EU isn't a federation, and having a single currency doesn't make the eurozone any more so.

The buildings aren't as bad, being european insitution headquarters. However, as they aren't necessarily widely recognizable, they come out a bit self serving.

When CGNAT is present, my guess is that's the case. It would be nice to see a study on that; don't know if there is one already.

Users doing speed tests in CGNAT may be seeing numbers that aren't exactly real for a (still) mostly IPv4 Internet.

I don't expect any ISP to do IPv6 today and deploy routers with a flow label bug... Those types of bugs no longer go unnoticed.

IPv6-only ISPs might hit other issues, though. They have to bridge to IPv4 somewhere.

Most of what people see as "SELinux" is actually the default policy, which started out as way too strict. Then SELinux-enabled distros such as Red Hat moved to a policy that only applies to system services, and leaves user-launched binaries as if SELinux was disabled.

And even for system services, you can disable SELinux for one service (permissive mode) and leave it enabled for the rest.

This has been the case for more than 10 years, but the damage was done. It's now very hard for users even considering learning the basics (which are not hard).