Imagine everyone who is in less technical or skilled domains.
I can't help but resist this line of thinking as a result. If the end is nigh for us, it's nigh for everyone else too. Imagine the droves of less technical workers in the workforce who will be unseated before software engineers. I don't think it is tenable for every worker in the first world to become replaced by a computer. If an attempt at this were to occur, those smart unemployed people would be a real pain in the ass for the oligarchs.
I think that this way of thinking is a little reductive. Every sport depends on certain intelligence metrics, and the brain is ultimately the operator behind all movement. The intelligence required to read a defense and solve a complex math problem may be different, but being good at either require intelligence.
A professional athlete in team based sports, at any given moment, is parsing a ton of data and responsing with quick reflexes and intuition to their changing environment. For example, quarterbacks in the NFL are reading a defense, parsing coverage, and making split second decisions after the play begins to develop.
A soccer goalkeeper is ensuring precise geometry to stay in an optimal position to make a stop, ensuring they are creating a triangle between the ball and the goalposts to optimize their position relative to the possible shooter.
Ontop of all of the in-game aspects, there is intelligence required to train to optimal levels, and hand waving this away as the coaches responsibility is not based in reality. Professional athletes have to stay very mentally focused in their training off the field to achieve their on the field results.
A lot of people judge professional athletes intelligence based on their communications with reporters and on field interviews, but public speaking ability and intelligence are not necessarily correlated. Your smartest engineer is probably not great at making keynote speeches, and likewise would be particularly terrible if they were making them after exerting extreme effort (like athletes do in post game interviews) or while they are pumped with adrenaline with an elevated heart rate (conditions sideline interviews tend to take place in).
All of this is to say, professional athletes arent all meat heads like most computer programmers and bookworms tend to believe. Your judgement that they aren't smart is probably based off of your bias and you are likely overweighting your analysis on a few notable dumb athletes against the crop.
Also, to top it all off, every sport is different, so you can't lump professional athletes into a single bucket.
This is an odd attack on a single slang word which is en vogue right now. Its slang. Its meant to be terse and communicates belonging of a cultural subgroup. Nobody thinks using "vibes" is eloquent.
Doing resistance training will mechanically stress the ligaments, bones and muscles which results in your body reinforcing and strengthening them. This is important to do on a localized level, as hypertrophy of the heart is not good whereas hypertrophy of the leg muscles is. You cant do this in pill form (at least yet)
> The AI of today can and if everyone knew about it, they would be using it.
The AI of today absolutely does not add 0.5x, I'm using cursor and copilot and they still are usually just a fiddly tool which gets it right half the time. Anything complicated enough to need me to review its work takes longer through series of prompting and correcting its work than if I did it myself, and anything trivial enough for it to one shot its not saving me much time on anyways. All for a costly monthly subscription.
Unfortunately my on the ground experience is drastically different from you. I use Claude code though so that might be the difference.
But AI for me is right 90 percent of the time. It’s possible our prompt engineering is different.
> The AI of today absolutely does not add 0.5x, I'm using cursor and copilot and they still are us
You know when people say shit like this I wonder if they ever are able to think from another perspective? Like they say one thing but tons and tons of other people are saying another thing and what gets me absolutely curious is how someone can be so brain fucking dead that they can’t even consider the other perspective. Tons and tons of people say what you say but an equal amount say the opposite.
I work at big tech and the number of bad deploys and reverts I've seen go out due to getting types wrong is in the hundreds. Increased type safety would catch 99% of the reverts I've seen.
Every one of these quotes is from someone who would be junior or midlevel at best at any company. Not trying to be ageist but mid twenty somethings are filled with enthusiasm and fantastical ideas which are yet to be vetted or guided by real world experience. I agree with your skepticism here
At some point, the turnover has to lead to "the blind leading the blind" with nobody having a clearer big picture view on the software they own. This can't be a productive way to run a company, but they seem to persist nonetheless. It may take many years, but I imagine their software will rot from within due to their hiring practices.
Exactly, Amazon practices the equivalent of a decimation of their workforce. This may even work in the initial years, but over time they'll quickly lose their best minds and the software will be unmaintainable.
I can't help but resist this line of thinking as a result. If the end is nigh for us, it's nigh for everyone else too. Imagine the droves of less technical workers in the workforce who will be unseated before software engineers. I don't think it is tenable for every worker in the first world to become replaced by a computer. If an attempt at this were to occur, those smart unemployed people would be a real pain in the ass for the oligarchs.