brain5ide

Are we talking about structural things or about individual perspective things?

At individual perspective - AI is useful as a helper to achieve your generative tasks. I'd argue against analytic tasks, but YMMV.

At the societal perspective, e.g. you as individual can not trus anything the society has produced, because it's likely some AI generated bullshit.

Some time ago, if you were not trusting a source, you could build your understanding by evaluating a plurality of sources and perspectives and get to the answer in a statistical manner. Now every possible argument can be stretched in any possible dimension and your ability to build a conclusion has been ripped away.

Or the reader will put you into a category yourself and won't be willing to look at the essence of the argument.

I'd say the better word for that is polarising than political, but they synonims these days.

If I understood correctly, that anectode in first paragraph looks like an interaction with a child who is trying something but lacks confidence.

I think the first sentence of the author counters your comment. What you described works best in a familiar codebase where the organizing principles have been maintained well and are familiar to the reader and the tools are just the extension of those organizing principles. Even then a deviation from those rules might produce gaps in understanding of what the codebase does.

And grep cuts right through that in a pretty universal way. What the post describes are just ways to not work against grep to optimize for something ephemeral.

The only proper responses would be: "Not yet" or "Not anymore".

It's not actually saying that. It's saying, that the N is not really relevant technologically enough to be worth evaluating every damn time. It maybe relevant organizationally to fit your org chart. Also, putting a barrier to creating a new service is a feature of monolith. Other types of partitionings are still there. They just might require some insight into existing arch.

This happened once.

How does a shared car not need those items? It is just not under your management and is accounted somewhere else. But they are needed and you are paying for it. The only advantage could be that you're not paying with your own time and then it depends on what is cheaper, your work time or that maintenance time.

I call BS on your claim about everyone being in. For anything to work only a particular type of people must be in especially at the start. To be honest most of PGs writings are dedicated to defining that, including your quote.

At least that's what I take from it. Cultism is just something that follows success.

I might be cynical, but that change would work only with the assumption that what is done on the page remains constant. What I guess would happen is that it would do 5% more useless operations. The limiting factor here is user's tolerance for bullshit, not some predefined functionality.

Well, to be honest, we don't have any kind of language for that. It's as if these serializer-of-an-imagined-state things which we call languages are not good for communicating our intentions, or anything really. Godel or Wittgenstein for references here, probably.

We had this joke.

A meeting of faculty heads is taking place. The topic - funding. The chairman says: "Hey, physicists, why are you so expensive? You need all those gadgets and materials to perform your experiments. Look at the mathematicians. All they need to produce a research paper are a box of paper, a box of pencils, and a trash can." "We don't even need trash cans, sir." announces the dean of Philosophy.

Oh man! Haven't heard that one in a while. Need to rewatch it and write a TPS report.

Adulthood necessary to vote could be one?

This. Just substitute goverment with society/market/evolution. Government is too small a fish for this phenomenon.