vsareto

Well if you can't, then I guess we shouldn't be complaining about feeding brains and average employees who just want to follow specs

This just sounds like someone who can't write good specs

It's because defining requirements is someone else's job, so if you get involved, you will be doing part of their job while you might already be working at your capacity.

The Agile style user stories that often lack technical details because the author doesn't know enough about the technical details means the developer is the one actually writing the requirements (usually as they are doing the work).

How sure are you they are incompetent vs. just not giving any fucks/disconnected from the job and there to get paid (it's objective one after all!)

This seems a little inconsistent to me.

Is it really their fault if the industry says they are qualified and gives them a job when they are incompetent?

> I remembered the account of developers committing bugs so that reviewers were forced to find something instead of just giving the all clear.

You'd be better off pair programming everything and forgoing code reviews.

Sometimes I think the people that come up with this shit are sociopaths.

It would be nice if only the people with real conviction were doing things by choice, but that isn't realistic. Most people are compelled to have a job, and the system has no guarantee of placing you in the job where you best fit.

It's possible he is right, but it is also possible that these traits aren't trainable, and without that, you may not have a population sufficient enough to sustain his ideal.

There's two abuses in this system you have to watch out for:

- being presented under-cooked ideas so you do the thinking for them.

- too many ideas (which can lead to the first) with an inability to focus

There is a feedback loop for the first where people don't dive too deeply into their idea because they know they'll get a lot of criticism.

The second can be bad because the idea or its implementation is never polished.

They should remove the L4 from the job post title if that's the case, or replace it with (L1 - L7) so it's clear it's for broad levels of experience

How far are they going to go to validate it’s legit if you make one up?

But say you don’t want to forge one for just any company because that might not be legal. You could make your own company with a site and make offer letters that way.

Most people don't know what a $400k Security Engineer actually does to warrant that pay because you can probably find a similar job at another company that pays much less and probably makes you work more. I sure as fuck don't and I at least have one pentesting cert FWIW.

This pricing scheme punishes people trying to be honest about their skill set. Otherwise why stop at the average? Just max it out and ask for $700k. Another $300k/yr won't break Netflix's bank and everyone else is getting rich that they won't care to call you out either.

>The GPTs/GPT Agents and Assistants demos in particular showed that they are a black box within a black box within a black box that you can't port anywhere else.

This just rings hollow to me. We lost the fights for database portability, cloud portability, payments/billing portability, and other individual SaaS lock-in. I don't see why it'll be different this time around.

You need specific hardware for Win 11. A motherboard for a Ryzen 7 I bought in only 2017 doesn't qualify.

I doubt any military or strategically important applications will be regulated