A million factions all trying to take their angst out on some other neighboring faction, with geography that also puts everyone in the crossroads of every conquering group.
I mean at work people are slowed down by management and getting alignment is even slower than before. As PMs and execs keep asking more to be done in the same-ish time, we are getting slow cooked.
Extra productivity at work is not being used at fixing bugs as well.
Yeah work, despite management's best intentions, is really failing AI by being that much relatively slower than engineering potential now. It's a bummer.
> I wonder if, 10 years from now, LLMs will still be answering questions that were answered in the halcyon 2014-2020 days of SO better than anything that came after?
I've wondered this too and I wonder if the existing corpus plus new GitHub/doc site scrapes will be enough to keep things current.
> Great post. This should be the default configuration, community can make discussions, contributors can make issues.
I'm not so sure. I think this sort of discussion mostly falls within the realm of bike shedding. I'll explain why.
There's such a thing as a ticket life cycle. Ticketing flows typically feature a triage/reproduction stage. Just because someone creates an issue that doesn't necessarily mean the issue exists or isn't already tracked somewhere else, or that the ticket has all the necessary and sufficient information to troubleshoot an issue. When a ticket is created, the first step is to have someone look at it and check if there's something to it. This happens even when tickets are created by internal stakeholders, such as QAs.
GitHub supports ticket labels, and the default set already cover these scenarios.
To me this discussion sounds like a project decided to update their workflow to move triage out of tickets and into a separate board. That's fine, it's the exact same thing but with a slightly more complex process. But it's the same thing.
> Great post. This should be the default configuration, community can make discussions, contributors can make issues.
1. We often say 'should' too easily. The post isn't making such a claim is it? I would shift away from saying 'should' to saying: start somewhere that works for your project, gather feedback and evidence, and adjust thoughtfully. You'll end up in a place that feels authentic.
2. If anything, I would prefer the default be random. Then projects end up being natural experiments. See [1]
3. At a meta level, this reminds me of Brian:
> Brian: Look, you've got it all wrong! You don't need to follow me. You don't need to follow anybody! You've got to think for yourselves! You're all individuals!
reply