My favorite use is actually just to help me name stuff. Give it a short description of what the thing does and get a list of decent names. Refine if they’re all missing something.

Also useful for finding things quickly in generated documentation, by attaching the documentation as context. And I use it when trying to remember some of the more obscure syntax stuff.

As for coding assistants, they can help quickly fill in boilerplate or maybe autocomplete a line or two. I don’t use it for generating whole functions or anything larger.

So I get some nice marginal benefits out of it. I definitely like it. It’s got a ways to go before it replaces the programming part of my job, though.

We butchered humanlike / 10

Sure you can move some parts of the conversation to a review session, though I think the answers will be heavily influenced by hindsight at that point. For example, hearing about dead end paths they considered can be very informative in a way that I think candidates assume is negative. Nobody expects you to get it right the first time and telling the interviewer about your binary tree solution (that actually doesn’t work) can be a good thing.

But the biggest problem I think with not being in the room as an interviewer is that you lose the opportunity to hint and direct the candidate away from unproductive solutions or use of time. There are people who won’t ask questions about things that are ambiguous or they’ll misinterpret the program and that shouldn’t be a deal breaker.

Usually it only takes a very subtle nudge to get things back on track, otherwise you wind up getting a solution that’s not at all what you’re looking for (and more importantly, doesn’t demonstrate the knowledge you’re looking for). Or maybe you wind up with barely a solution because the candidate spent most of their time spinning their wheels. A good portion of the questions I ask during an interview serve this purpose of keeping the focus of the candidate on the right things.

I’m not sure that offline or alone coding tests are any better. A good coding interview should be about a lot more than just seeing if they produce well structured and optimal code. It’s about seeing what kinds of questions they’ll ask, what kind of alternatives and trade offs they’ll consider, probing some of the decisions they make. All the stuff that goes into being a good SWE, which you can demonstrate even if you’re having trouble coming up with the optimal solution to this particular problem.

I think it definitely depends on the level of involvement and the intent. Sure not everybody who just asks for something to be made for them is doing much directing. But someone who does a lot of refinement and curation of AI generated output needs to demonstrate the same kind of creativity and vision as an actual director.

I guess I’d say telling an artist to do something doesn’t make you a director. But a director telling an AI to do the same kinds of things they’d tell an artist doesn’t suddenly make them not a director.

I’m fairly certain most people consider directing (film, music, art, etc) to be an artistic process.

Also magenta. Actually, white and black too.

I mean, Agile doesn’t really demand that you do or don’t use tickets. You can definitely use tickets without scrum.

Seconded, though I would advise getting the DLC after completing the main game.

It can’t be expressed in any integer-based notation without an infinite number of digits. Only when expressed in some bases which are themselves, irrational. It’s infinity either way.

The number which famously has an infinite number of digits? I thought we were arguing against the real-ness of infinity.

Also note: the method I was describing is one of the ways in which pi can be calculated.

It destroys meaningful operations it comes into contact with, and requires invisible and growing workarounds to maintain (e.g. “countably” infinite vs “uncountably” infinite) which smells of fantasy, philosophically speaking.

This isn’t always true. The convergent series comes to mind, where an infinite summation can be resolved to a finite number.

It’s quite useful, though, to understand a curve or arc as having infinite edges in order to calculate its area. The area of a triangle is easy to calculate. Splitting the arc into two triangles by adding a point in the middle of the arc makes it easy to calculate the area… And so on, splitting the arc into an infinite number of triangles with an infinite number of points along the arc makes the area calculable to an arbitrary precision.

Eh, not really then. If you have some behavior in those 50 copy/pastes that needs to be deleted, you’ve got to delete it 50 times. That’s not easier at all.

The thing is I don’t think it has anything to offer to bring in people from outside the genre. Some people really enjoy it but you kinda have to already be into that kind of thing (DOTA).

The time since the release of that song is longer than 1985 was from it (2004).

I never said story games are shallow. But if the games you like are ones where you can feel like you’ve experienced all the game and the story has to offer in a single playthrough then they are, by definition, shallow. Even a great movie is worth watching multiple times of its story has any appreciable depth. Video games, even more so since there should be more to the story to experience.

Sounds like what you enjoy are shallow, linear story games. To each their own, of course. Glad you’re happy with what PS5 offers you in that regard. But the industry has a lot more to offer than that.

Guns may not cause the mental health issues that make people turn violent, but they do allow violent people to become mass murderers. Video games do neither.

I’m not sure how anybody can look at the way GTA 5 online was monetized to hell and not seriously question how far they’re going to try to go with GTA 6. I’m fully expecting it to leak into GTA 6’s single player with an intense focus on getting more and more out of mtx.