It’s not even remotely close to the main point of the article but: I really like the Chris Seaton callout. I talked about this initiative with him the RubyConf before he passed.
Open Source contributors and maintainers feel that there is a constant pressure to be producing. That somehow our worth is somehow only as good as our recent patches. That note says to me: that’s not the case. That even after the contributions stop, or we do, that our efforts and impacts are felt and remembered.
I miss him too. We knew each other online for some time, but that was the first time I ever met him in person. I came back and couldn’t stop talking about him to my wife when she asked how the conf went. Truly an inspiring experience.
I hope truffle ruby does well, too. But even if it doesn’t, he’s still made an impact on me, and on the community. I told him “thank you” to his face when we met. I also wish I could have also somehow let him know my thanks and appreciation was unconditional.
I’ve been on both sides of this equation. If someone is dinging you for doing extra work, it could be a sign that your priorities are not aligned.
Like, if you’ve got a tight deadline coming up, it’s not the time to spend a week making CI slightly faster. On the other hand, if someone is telling you to not do work (right now), then they also need to help be responsible for finding time to do that work and understanding the impacts of that work never gets done.
I explain this to people as the tension between important urgent work. Some work is important but never（rarely) urgent. And if you ignore important work (like maintenance) it might become urgent at a very bad time.
Also there is value in having an audit trail of who did what when and why, both for operations and system evolution, and for all the compliance junk. Not so much value that a tiny bit of cleanup needs a huge amount of overhead though.
If you want a trail, there is already the PR. It has description that explains why the change makes sense, code changes, reviewers, if relevant screenshots and videos.
If you want small PRs that contain one meaningful, easy to review change, and that change only concerns the development team, there is no reason to create a ticket for the sake of creating a ticket.
Also, in some dysfunctional teams creating a ticket means it requires prioritization and you will most likely never work on it and ticket will be deleted five years from today when nobody you know with at the company anymore.
Believe me, no sane CFO (or include any person not in the dev team or product team) will look up your Jira ticket explaining why you wanted to refactor the GitHub actions because you had to update 10 files whenever there’s is a new version of a tool used in your pipeline.
Also, usually these changes are so small and straightforward, arguing about putting it in a ticket takes longer than reviewing it and merging it.
The most important properties of real audit trails are that they are side effects of the actual work, created during or after the fact without interfering with how the work is done.
The thing about work tickets is that they have none of those properties. Besides almost every developer insists on working with a complete audit trail that is just ignored because people don't want to look at it.
Compliance guarantee is a different beast, that isn't improved in any way by work tickets, but may need more work than the audit trail.
I’ve never actually done this. But I’ve fantasized about preparing several interview questions for the company I’m interviewing at. They forget that interviews are a two way street.
If I like them (and the process was bearable), I would ask nothing. If I’m mildly annoyed, something “simple” yet patronizing like fizbuzz. If I’m REALLY annoyed then something wildly specific and pedantic.
Interviewer: “do you have any questions for me?”
Why yes, a chicken, fox and sack of flour need to cross a doubly linked list, how would you flip the list inside out from the middle while counting the number of pingpongballs that can fit into 747 VW Beatles.
Never ask nothing if you like them. Always have some keen-sounding questions to ask.
When it comes to hiring decisions if there are tied candidates but only one position it can often come down to candidates A was quiet and didn't ask any questions and seems disinterested, but candidate B had loads of questions to ask at the end and seemed really interested and keen and wanted to know x, y, and z.
Who do you think gets hired in those scenarios.
But yeah it is sometimes tempting to turn the tables :). So far no one has done it to me, but not sure what my response would be. "Haha nice joke! Ok we're outta time thanks for coming!" I guess!
Plus, asking intelligent questions about team dynamics, or how a company prefers to do X workflow, also show that you understand the importance of those things. If I am evaluating a candidate, those types of questions would show additional areas of skill and knowledge that person possesses that may not have already come out through the rest of the interview.
If you already hate them asking no questions is fine - you already know you wouldn't accept the job if offered so you should just say that and ask how quick the interview can end (sometimes they have quotas to fill and since you already have blocked off the time it costs you almost nothing to stay and can be a polite way to help someone else thus doing a good deed).
If you are inclined to like them enough to accept a job you need to ask questions! You need to be sure your inclination is correct. The worst case is you accept a job and realize after a month it is a bad job - all your other leads have gone cold and unemployment won't like you quitting now (check your local rules for if you can collect and if so what, but beware that you may have to keep working while looking for a job which is hard)
Of course there are different situations. If you are signing a 1 month contract you sill are watching your other leads anyway in that month. (or they are paying you enough to take 3-6 months off looking for the next contract)
Oh for sure. Ask questions, just not annoying whiteboard questions. Also I hate this “ask us anything” part of the interview. It’s so performative.
It should be rephrased as “the jeopardy round” since it’s still about the candidate, but phrased backwards. And it’s not a time for REAL questions, it’s a time to show you’re smart and attentive but not TOO smart, you want the interviewer to feel good about themselves so they can feel good about you.
> what my response would be
I don’t ask candidates to do anything I wouldn’t put up with. It would be unusual but I would be game (if they were serious). Fundamentally that’s what my fantasy is about: a world where interviewer and interviewee have mutual respect for each other.
In the recent past I’ve asked candidates to walk me through code they’ve written. I’m super happy to reciprocate for 15 min and I think the candidate (if they’re working with me directly) would get a lot out of it.
I'm sorry, is that 747 different VW Beetles, or one VW Beetle that's scaled up to be 747-sized? If it's scaled up, is it so they have the same length, or area? Neither is relevant (just tell me the area to fill with balls), but I'd like to know, anyway.
It’s a trick question. The number is a distraction. If they don’t ask the model year of the VW Beatle they’re clearly not detail oriented and can’t be trusted. /s
Sure, interviews go both ways, but there’s a major difference in what each side wants from the other. The company wants someone who can deliver software and architecture, which requires substantial vetting. The main thing the employee wants (in most cases) is money, which is far easier to determine the value of (I’d consider “what’s the position pay?” a perfectly reasonable question when interviewing someone).
The employee also wants to understand working conditions like company culture, overtime expectations, etc.theres lots of fuzzier questions you can and should ask in interviews because interviewers will almost never intentionally reveal this information if asked directly.
The pay question is valid, but not appropriate for a technical interview. If someone asked me I wouldn’t even know the answer. That would be a question for the recruiter or possible engineering manager.
I think it’s 100% okay to ask about pay in an interview but not okay if it’s the only thing you ask about.
For me: I care about the day-to-day of who I’m working with and what that dynamic is like (in addition to money and benefits).
The only pay question I can answer is how realistic getting the promised bonus is. I've worked in places where there was a bonus plan that could pay nice, but in practice we got $200 one year, nothing the next, and then it ended. I've worked in places where on a bad year the bonus was $15000 (after taxes and 401k deduction) and it went up in good years. I can't tell you what your pay will be, I know your grade so I could look up the range but I don't remember it (even for my grade I don't remember)
What you really should be asking is what the company is like to work for. Is there set/expected working hours (can you accept those hours). How often are there lunches that in practice are mandatory? Do people really play ping-pong or are the tables just for show / after work. Is there a dress code? How much notice is required for vacations. Will they tell you that you can't take vacation at times, and if so when. What do they expect you to do that isn't in your job description (that is as a programmer are you also expected to talk to customers). What is the dress code. Anything else that might affect your ability to work there.
There are also questions they are not legally allowed to ask (family status, disability not relevant to the job...). However you might want to reveal that you are/have one of those things so they they will pass you over now (they can always find an excuse once they know they won't hire you) if they care instead of latter. Hopefully this never comes up (or if it does they turn out not to care and so hire you anyway) but depending on your situation you might decide it is better to reveal it now rather than dealing with them finding out later. This is food for thought, not something I think is needed.
> The main thing the employee wants (in most cases) is money, which is far easier to determine the value of
Money isn't important if you never see it. If the employer can't solve leetcode on the spot, how are you to believe they will be able to figure out how to make payment?
I learned to love rustfmt but there’s one thing that bothers me: There’s a few times where there are two ways to do something like a one line closure can omit the curly brackets, but multi line closures cannot. Rustfmt prefers to remove those brackets when it can, but I prefer to keep them, which makes editing the code faster since I don’t have a syntax error if I suddenly need a second line.
I can still live with it. And I like the clean, minimal version when I don’t have to edit. Just adding that “style” can have impact beyond how it looks involving ease of editing. And it stinks when your preferences clash with the community.
Meditation practitioners have been writing for thousands of years about the problem of "quieting the monkey mind" which reads just like your typical description of ADHD, only in the specific setting of a meditation retreat (which is typically an intentionally challenging, spartan, uncomfortable environment - hence one where pretty much everyone is enticed to get fidgety and hyper). It's difficult for everyone at first!
Next time Please state that upfront: you don’t know anyone with ADHD that this has been effective for and you dont have ADHD yourself.
“Have you tried” comments from people without firsthand experience is basically asking others to be your guinea pig. I didn’t say “hard” I said “pain” as in a physical reaction. If you don’t have the same pathology I don’t think you can truly empathize or understand what you’re asking me to do (even if you think you do).
I’m glad you found meditation and that it’s helpful for you. I’m asking that you modify your evangelism in the future to give people maximum context on where your suggestions are coming from (and associated limitations).
There is a lot of data that meditation is beneficial for people with ADHD and potentially even more so since they “need it more”. Yes it is extremely challenging which is why in my parent I stated that according to what I have read, it takes someone with ADHD potentially twice as long to see the benefits of practice in comparison to healthy controls. I have ADHD and have learned to meditate; my mind was out of control, and I feel as though I have control of it now, without stimulant medication. I encourage you to look into the data if this is something you find interesting.
I've only tried mindfulness meditation, but as others have chimed in in the thread, other types may be easier depending on your circumstance. As I started, even being able to focus for 5-10s uninterrupted by thought was a huge win. It may be slow, but eventually you will be able to extend these periods and get to a point where it's actually 'working'.
Also, I don't think using stimulants or other adhd meds (like atomoxetine), if they're part of your routine is necessarily cheating. I like to think of them as 'training wheels', which will help you focus internally and less on your thoughts. It will still be difficult (like it is even for those who don't have ADHD), but it may help your brain start shaping those neural important pathways a bit sooner and more easily than it'd otherwise come unmedicated.
There’s a nut bar on Reddit who talks about the dangers of “quietism” and I have to grudgingly agree with some of his points. I did quiet my monkey mind, but then discovered that without my constant, rapid fire internal monologue, I had difficulty engaging in other self improvement activities. I would later discover I was working predominantly from Fast thinking (Thinking Fast and Slow) which has trouble moralizing on your actions.
Mindfulness is not the same thing, but I’m not sure it’s a solution for us either.
I have unmedicated ADHD (Psychiatrist diagnosed) and I really struggled with mindfulness meditation (Even tried a Vipassana retreat). However Transcendental Meditation (TM) worked really well. I find my mind is more organized after a year of practising.
I had a bad back before trying meditation so it was doubly bad.
I have a trick for you but quieting your mind won’t necessarily make your life better. I would instead encourage you to look at “walking meditation”. Forest bathing, cycling, walking. Tai chi is remarkably good. A lot of people with emotional issues are detached from their bodies, and part of healing is accepting that “you” is both your mind and your body.
Alright, caveat served: count your breaths. Count to ten, then start over. This gives your brain something to do, connecting the math and verbal centers but without triggering deeper thoughts. You will catch your mind has wandered when you realize you just counted 13. Just stop and start over, don’t get into judging yourself. It happens to everyone. Just go back to 1. You can analyze the sitting afterward, not in the middle.
If you find yourself breathing in on an even number, or out on an odd number, you've gotten lost. No problem, just reset to 1. Got to ten? You win! Also, reset to 1.
Very useful and simple technique for calm and focus.
Largely depends on the parameters.
I believe it also assumes infinite resources.
In general it's a very simple model not meant to explain all and everything.
The interesting thing here is that it breaks assumptions that to be "alpha" you MUST dominate to win. Even if within only these parameters, it suggest there are conditions where being "nice" isn't just a nebulous ethical thing, but it's an optimal conflict strategy.
I think it carries two different messages to two different groups. If you're a "lets all be friends" type, then it's important that you also guard the resources that allow you to be nice. Being provokable isn't "being mean" its the thing allowing you to be nice. If you're a "take advantage of the rubes" type, it's a hint that there might be metaphorical money left on the table by being too greedy.
> not meant to explain all and everything.
That it's not true ALL the time, is less interesting than the fact that it's true some of the time. At least to me.
The problem I have with this approach is that it seems models get confused with prescriptive information such as print “it worked” or a comment stating the desired intent of code (which it doesn’t do at all). As opposed to descriptive information: generating priors and comparing them to actual output to yield either confirmation/refutation or surprise.
I think double checking is better than not, but without the ability to really “know” reason it feels a bit like adding one more hull layer to the titanic in an effort to make it unsinkable.
This is absolutely infuriating for me to see: People keep posting shit like "do it right or i will kill a puppy, you can get bitcoin if you are right" then never any testing where they change one word here or there and compare what does and doesn't work vs the dumb shit they are saying
The article is stating what inputs they used and the output they observed. They stated they saw more tokens used and more time spent before returning an answer. That seems like a data point you can test. Which is maybe not the zoom level or exact content you’re looking for, but I don’t feel your criticism sticks here.
> testing where they change one word here or there and compare
You can be that person. You can write that post. Nothing is stopping you.
I don’t think you realize that you’re making demands on an author who doesn’t owe you anything. And what you’re asking for is quite difficult. I think it’s okay to frame it as a wish or a desire. “I wish more articles include …”
Or as frustration on a community who keeps upvoting things you consider “not a decent article.”
Or as an opportunity “Has anyone investigated a scientific framework for modifying these prompts…”
> a decent article would have included all of that.
My retort that you can write such an article suggests that it’s more difficult than you might realize and the absence of such articles in our feeds suggests what you’re asking for might be impossible (providing hard, empirical data about a soft, non deterministic system). If you have an article that acts as a bright spot for how to write such an article, that would also be a helpful comment.
Nothing about your these words reads as constructive to me:
> This is absolutely infuriating for me to see: People keep posting shit like "do it right or i will kill a puppy, you can get bitcoin if you are right" then never any testing where they change one word here or there and compare what does and doesn't work vs the dumb shit they are saying
It doesn't seem like your goal was to convey feedback in a way that was digestable, nor was in a way that was satisfiable (my previous critique).
Open Source contributors and maintainers feel that there is a constant pressure to be producing. That somehow our worth is somehow only as good as our recent patches. That note says to me: that’s not the case. That even after the contributions stop, or we do, that our efforts and impacts are felt and remembered.
reply