ikerino

Not the angle I'm coming at it from.

I mask as a coping mechanism for ADHD and Social Anxiety. This masking causes me harm. I learned it in the way you describe.

The most helpful learning I've gotten through years of therapy has been to: (1) recognize what I'm doing (2) not beat myself up about it (3) try small steps to change my behavior so that I can feel good about it.

I'm the only person who can unlearn this for myself. I don't blame anyone who masks, and have nothing but empathy for the experience, but I'm proposing they can find a different way.

Absolutely agree with this.

I still think it's important to (1) notice what's causing the problem, bring it into consciousness (2) understand the behavior (in this case: masking) and reckon with it if if's causing a bad outcome (burnout.)

Easier said than done. For me, therapy has been life-changing for helping me notice and understand unintentional behaviors.

Eh, this just feels like "software engineering simulator." I don't have autism but a good bit of this feels familiar (am I on the spectrum?) I'm an introvert and have struggled to cope with corporate work for a while.

What helps:

- Challenging the idea that you need to mask to be successful. If masking is a recipe for burnout, then it actually seems like it's a strategy that will lower your chance for success. How much of the need here is self-imposed?

- Owning your calendar and timing for meetings to better suit your energy.

- Regular therapy and reflection, honestly.

- Regular exercise, doesn't matter who you are or what form, this is essential.

I can respect that this "simulation" fosters empathy, but worry that it also awfulizes/catastrophizes solvable problems. Figuring out functional routines and managing burnout is just as big a part of the job as writing code. It's very much a personal responsibility, maybe not in the job description, maybe harder for some than others, but it is our responsibility.

How is that different than how any self-taught programmer learns? Dive into a too-big idea, try to make it work and learn from that experience.

Repeat that a few hundred times and you'll have some strong intuitions and sensibilities.

Hot take: Junior devs are going to be the ones who "know how to build with AI" better than current seniors.

They are entering the job market with sensibilities for a higher-level of abstraction. They will be the first generation of devs that went through high-school + college building with AI.

Am I right to say: doesn't look better than anything we've seen before?

Useful tip! I'll use this.

Not sure how I feel about it, but the the blog post seems very clearly LLM-written to me. Nobody writes like this:

> Revolutionary? No. Life-changing? Absolutely.

I'm curious about the "environmentally friendly" promise. How meaningful/measurable would removing these tags be?

I think there's something to be said for efficiency/no wasted bytes, but better for the environment feels like a major stretch/beside the point...

It's like saying "if we all cut out unnecessary adjectives from our speech, it would save 100k gallons of water per day." Could that be true, maybe? But that's not the thing that makes brevity meaningful/important.

(or: Tongue-in-cheek joke that went over my <head>?)

Ran into this earlier today when using Gemini 2.5 Pro.

Thought it was a weird bug.

Feels reasonable in the first few paragraphs, then quickly starts reading like science fiction.

Would love to read a perspective examining "what is the slowest reasonable pace of development we could expect." This feels to me like the fastest (unreasonable) trajectory we could expect.

> Important Corollary Two. If you show a nonprogrammer a screen which has a user interface which is 100% beautiful, they will think the program is almost done.

> People who aren’t programmers are just looking at the screen and seeing some pixels. And if the pixels look like they make up a program which does something, they think “oh, gosh, how much harder could it be to make it actually work?“