somesoftdev
Joined 6 years ago
Joined 6 years ago
I agree that both code and data are akin in terms of meaning. Transitioning from Assembly language to Python liberates us from concerns about registers and low-level intricacies. Python directs our attention to the problems we aim to solve, in contrast to low-level languages where a significant effort is spent on specifying hardware operations. High-level languages emphasize outcomes, enabling us to focus on the result rather than meticulously instructing the hardware. AI propels us further along this trajectory.
In this sense, I view a prompt and code as rather similar.
For the last five years we're cooking most of our meals at home, maybe go out or order food once or twice a month. The food we cook isn't as exotic, nicely looking or sophisticated as the food served at Google, but it is tasty, fresh, healthy and the groceries are pretty cheap. And despite being older, my blood results are better now than when I was leaving Google.
The approach you describe sounds like a piece of advise for someone who hates his job. So one would do as little as possible just not to get himself fired. Sounds like an awful position to be in.
The are other pros. Maybe someone else is facing similar issue - communication may lead to collaboration in this case. If you communicate (early!) about some issues, mgmt has time to account for extra risks or delays.
So yeah, communication will get you promoted earlier than focusing on your tasks and keeping everything to yourself. I just cannot agree with the 10% for work and 90% for the communication ratio, that seems like way too much overhead. I think I would rather swap those numbers. Because how are you going to do anything meaningful if you work less than an hour a day?