cik

I choose to argue the complete inverse. In the age of AI there is increasing value on being a reasonably well rounded generalist. Exposure to different paradigms and possibilities matters significantly more than depth within a single purview.

From a career risk perspective, this is also the right answer. Domains disappear, though they frequently morph. Cross domain knowledge allows the individual to apply lessons and patterns they've learned elsewhere.

The point is not for me. The point is grandma. She can never have this without increasing needless complexity. People should be able to click a button whilst having their privacy respected.

This is entirely too much effort, which truly drives home how the business model of televisions is now highly influenced by razors.

I buy a screen. I choose to control what outputs to said screen. The discussion should end there, were the product the screen. In reality, people actively pay money to become the product (i.e paying to be advertised to, and paying for your own data yo be sold).

I see this as no different than brand allegiance. With clothing, many individuals paid for brands to advertise on their bodies, whilst in turn they signal to others. The incentives are different, though the incentives similar.

There's a reason that so many of us see beauty in Thoreau.

I'm sick of the game of whack a mole. Decades ago Network Solutions was expensive, yet still had horrid support. godaddy was new, friendly, and great, cue enshittification. Migrated, as one does to gandi - who of course gets a new owner, and becomes horrid.

Moved to namecheap. Honestly, they've been great to me, for years, but now I'm worried. The reality is that for all the efforts we put into reducing SPOFs, scaling, and being ready for the inevitable, the registrar system is now a single point chokehold that provides serious risk.

This is especially disheartening when you remember OpenSRS. It explicitly wasn't supposed to be, and wasn't designed to be that way.

I have been using this font for 3 years now. I can't, and won't get off it. I use it wherever I can - heck there's an Arch package! I'm pleasantly surprised by how much something this simple makes me happy. Legitimately a font has added to my life.

I too could, theoretically be thrilled to be drugged to the gills when I'm killed. I however, can consent. Animals cannot. But we know that animals can think. Regardless of debating the ethics of consuming them, this adds an additional ethical quagmire of is it ethically sound to drug non-consenting, thinking species.

This is a bit oversimplified, and relies heavily on understanding your threat vectors and agents. You haven't spoke about audio even.

There's a reason that many military and intelligence organizations worldwide physically cut / remove wifi and bluetooth chips from boards. The same is done when audio is identifiable, and specific hardware (only) greenlit.

I've lost hours of my life to calls explaining exactly this, only to have people ignore it, only to further have folks come back, tail between their legs. The worst part is learning this in industry, as I did. There's a reason for in-industry advisors. I wish that I had learned this the easy way.

I tend to apply this to myself, within an organization (as opposed to those who like to generically try it all - fair enough). I've always been an enormous fan of touring the organization. Whether I join as a dev, or an exec, I always make it a point to spend some time with product, with support, and with marketing. It ends up providing me a unique vantage point. I encourage others to do the same, and when I 'control' onboarding, make it part of the process.

It's literally the fastest way to have someone get up to speed with the customer profile and product. They can play with it whilst listening in to support calls (if a thing). They can learn about pain points and "hard edges" that as developers we don't always come across.

I'm not going to pretend to understand your stuggle, but I will echo it through my lens. I am not trying to hijack your point, inasmuch support it with my view.

I uses to think that it was about fear of the unknown, or as you've said "Being angry at people who make you feel a bit weird inside".

I now firmly believe that it's a modern form of tribalism. Having an "other", whether as a scapegoat, a fear inducing device, or a target is simply too convenient to ignore. Whether or not one is a globalist is orthogonal to the fact that people ultimately decide, or evolve to see through a different lens.

What you're mentioning is 100% what's wrong with the industry. Agreed! To me a systems design conversation is a conversation - not a design goal. The idea is to determine ability and psychology:

1. When you press on someone's design respectfully, do they get defensive. Do they become argumentative.

2. When thoughtfully pointing out a concern, how does the candidate take it?

3. When you suggest a technology that makes no sense to intentionally challenge knowledge, does the candidate recognize why it makes no sense? Are they able to share what the negative of the approach is. If you indicate that you know the question is "senseless" but want their feedback, how do they communicate?

4. When you hard request a change that requires a literal rethink and rewrite do they become argumentative? Do they embrace the change?

5. When discussing testing, how do they think about it? I come down to the nitty gritty and ask about postive vs negative cases, table driven testing, what types of tests matter (for our situation) and why.

6. We discuss timeline tradeoffs, and then have the conversation about the candidate's approach given updates to see how they think.

You'll notice that I am never looking for a solution. I'm seeking communication, description, partnership while having a (relatively) thorough gasp of the subject matter.

Every single time I get a response from a candidate such as "I don't know, I'd have to learn more - or use AI to, or.. what do you think" turns out to be something I LOVE, because it creates a great fabric for the interview.

There's an issue where people assumed the syntactic activity of writing code was what mattered. The reality is that this was always a smaller part of the role, as opposed to thinking about observability, serviceability, and test automation. The ability to write software that is properly separated from concerns and when to enact those separations matters.

At the same time, I think we're far too far down the systems path now. We've hit a point where interviewing has become purely systems design "because the AI writes the code".

Not that I'm ever asked, but I inherently believe the act of critical thinking, communication, and expression are the key skills for those who already have the appropriate coding/engineering/cs/etc background. I now only interview for those skills - but through the lens of impossible to solve systems design conversations as opposed to problems. It tells me a lot about how people think.

I'm a (Samsung) Fold user. They're great - a year in I never, or rarely if ever see the minute crease, and ditto here with Apple. The reality is that ~70% of the time I want a small screen. It's perfect (if thick due to the fold). It opens to "larger" (i.e 8 inches) which is great - compared to what I had before (6.9").

I'm actually hoping that this will force Samsung to solve their silly lockscreen choices, and the fact that it needs to be "configured" to be useful, because it's separate (Multilock - I'm talking to you). Honestly, I would happily take even bigger. The extra real estate when you want it is great. But it needs to hit tablet(ish) sizes. We're just in early days.

Thank you for sharing this. It's such a great example of how fun learning and the internet can be. It's downright refreshing when things don't have the same exact design as the rest of the universe, and take the time to teach something.

Why do we have the assumption that industrial robots need to have legs? The largest grocery store chain uses picker robots already - for building my orders, including fruit / vegetables (from boxes). They currently have humans filter the veggies and fruit prior to box setup, but a friend is working on the models to eliminate even that.

Their robots do movement using sliding scale in 3D spaces (think poles that are left right, up and down, and the "picker" being able to glide and move. They currently have a ceiling slider that goes down and suctions things into a pneumatic tube to then end up in my grocery bag. IMHO it works pretty well - especially considering that delivery is ~$8 for me.

Ultimately we're going to end up with several different types of robots, and not with a human centric vision. The question is if bipedal is a long term dead-end, and merely a short term method to fit into the world we currently have designed.