Your whole point is disproven by woodworking as a craft, and many other crafts for that matter. There are still craftspeople doing good work with wood even though IKEA and such have captured the furniture industry.
There will still be fine programmers developing software by hand after AI is good enough for most.
> There will still be fine programmers developing software by hand after AI is good enough for most.
This fallacy seems to be brought up very frequently, that there are still blacksmiths; people who ride horses; people who use typewriters; even people who use fountain pens, but they don't really exist in any practical or economical sense outside of 10 years ago Portland, OR.
No technological advancement that I'm aware of completely eliminates one's ability to pursue a discipline as a hobbyist or as a niche for rich people. It's rarely impossible, but I don't think that's ever anyone's point. Sometimes they even make a comeback, like vinyl records.
The scope of the topic seems to be what the usual one is, which is the chain of incentives that enable the pursuit of something as a persuasive exchange of value, particularly that of a market that needs a certain amount of volume and doesn't have shady protectionism working for it like standard textbooks.
With writing, like with other liberal arts, it's far from a new target of parental scrutiny, and it's my impression that those disciplines have long been the pursuit of people who can largely get away with not really needing a viable source of income, particularly during the apprentice and journeyman stages.
Programming has been largely been exempt from that, but if I were in the midst of a traditional comp sci program, facing the existential dreads that are U.S and Canadian economies (at least), along with the effective collapse of a path to financial stability, I'd be stupid not to be considering a major pivot; to what, I don't know.
No job is special, even though many programmers like to think of themselves as so. Everyone must learn to adapt to a changing world, just as they did a hundred years ago at the turn of the century.
I was pretty much told this in the 90s that I would have no real stability in life like my parents did and my life would be constant reinvention. That has been spot on.
It is the younger people who started their career after the financial crisis that got the wrong signaling. As if 2010-2021 was normal instead of the far from equilibrium state it was.
This current state of anxiety about the future is the normal state. That wonderful decade was the once in a lifetime event.
Yep, could be right. It might have only ever been a few stalwart professions that were expected to be constants. But I think the cost of life during the pre-2010 era absorbed the reasons those anxieties existed, whereas the severity of the rise in that cost of necessities since is the problem. As in, having an expectation of a volatile income-earning life is one thing if a house costs $80k or rent is $400, but having a volatile life with rent for the smallest serviceable apartment being $2-3k, and the same house costing $2m; that lack of stability isn't priced in by the markets
This is always said as if the buggy whip maker successfully transitioned to some new job. Please show me 10 actual examples of individuals in 1880 that successfully adapted to new jobs after the industrial revolution destroyed their old one, and what their life looked like before and after.
'Sure the 1880 start of the industrial revolution sucked, all the way through the end of WW2, but then we figured out jobs and middle class for a short time, so it doesn't matter you personally are being put at the 1880 starting point, because the 1950s had jobs'. Huh?
I don't have a dog in this disagreement, but putting the bar at "dig up the personal details of 10 different individual people and the changing dynamics of their lives over decades _starting from 1880_" is a pretty insane ask I'd imagine. How many resources for reliable and accurate longitudinal case studies from the 19th century are there really? I suppose we could read a couple dozen books written around then but that's just making a satisfactory reply so prohibitively time intensive as to be impossible.
Indeed, and when 10 were pulled up by zozbot234, they say that doesn't count. This sort of discussion is not really useful in my eyes, shifting goalposts around and not saying what one means.
I agree, but I do wonder if because those times were generally less specialized, urbanized, etc.. it would have been more possible to simply pivot to another non-specialized "job", because you were either uneducated and poor and needed to be able to do everything, or born rich and able to do the one special thing your whole life. Like when the buggy whip maker couldn't sell whips anymore, they just did 4 of the other jobs they had to do anyway.
The classic old person advice is to just walk in somewhere, give the owner a stern handshake, and you got a job, and if that job could pay your mortgage, then problem solved. Whereas now, to become a buggy whip maker (or whatever), we've developed yhe expectation that you go to school for 4 years and start out at the bottom of the income ladder. If the income we need to pay for the basics (which admittedly are different) requires a lifetime of experience, then it's impossible to pivot
1. Samuel Slater: Textile mill worker → Factory founder
Before: Born to a modest family in England, Slater worked as an apprentice in a textile mill, learning the mechanics of spinning frames.
After: In 1790 he emigrated to the United States, where he introduced British‑style water‑powered textile machinery, earning the nickname "Father of the American Industrial Revolution." He built the first successful cotton‑spinning mill in Rhode Island and became a wealthy industrialist.
2. Ellen Swallow Richards: Teacher → Pioneering chemist and sanitary engineer
Before: Taught school in Massachusetts while supporting her family after her father's death.
After: Enrolled at MIT (the first woman admitted), earned a chemistry degree, and applied scientific methods to public health, founding the first school of home economics and influencing water‑quality standards.
3. Frederick Winslow Taylor: Machinist → Scientific management consultant
Before: Trained as a mechanical engineer and worked on the shop floor of a steel plant, witnessing chaotic production practices.
After: Developed Taylorism, a systematic approach to labor efficiency, consulting for major firms and publishing The Principles of Scientific Management (1911), reshaping industrial labor organization.
4. John D. Rockefeller: Small‑scale merchant → Oil magnate
Before: Ran a modest produce‑selling business in Cleveland, Ohio, struggling after the Panic of 1873 reduced local demand.
After: Invested in the nascent petroleum industry, founded Standard Oil in 1870, and built a monopoly that made him the wealthiest person of his era.
5. Clara Barton: Teacher & clerk → Humanitarian nurse
Before: Worked as a schoolteacher and later as a clerk for the U.S. Patent Office, earning a modest living.
After: Volunteered as a nurse during the Civil War, later founding the American Red Cross in 1881, turning her wartime experience into a lifelong career in disaster relief.
6. Andrew Carnegie: Factory apprentice → Steel tycoon
Before: Began as a bobbin boy in a cotton factory in Scotland, later emigrating to the U.S. and working as a telegraph messenger.
After: Invested in railroads and iron, eventually creating Carnegie Steel Company (1901), becoming a leading philanthropist after retiring.
7. Lillian M. N. Stevens: Seamstress → Temperance leader
Before: Earned a living sewing garments in a New England workshop, a trade threatened by mechanized clothing factories.
After: Joined the Woman's Christian Temperance Union, rising to national president (1898‑1914) and influencing social reform legislation.
8. George Pullman: Cabinet‑maker → Railroad car innovator
Before: Trained as a carpenter, making furniture for a small New England firm that struggled as railroads expanded.
After: Designed and manufactured luxury sleeping cars, founding the Pullman Company (1867) and creating a model industrial town for his workers.
9. Mary Elizabeth Garrett: Schoolteacher → Medical education reformer
Before: Taught at a private academy in Baltimore, earning a modest salary.
After: Used her inheritance to fund the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine (1893), insisting on admission of women and establishing the first women’s medical school in the U.S.
10. Henry Ford: Farmhand → Automobile pioneer
Before: Worked on his family farm in Michigan and later as an apprentice machinist, facing limited prospects as agriculture mechanized.
After: Built the Ford Motor Company (1903) and introduced the moving‑assembly line (1913), making automobiles affordable for the masses.
Come on. These are edge cases. We are talking Joe average that went from having their own business, to working an average job. You know, the mass scaled transfer that will be what happens for most of society when people say 'they will find new jobs'. Not the small amount outliers.
The guys that ended up spending their lives living in boarding houses with other men, never starting a family.
The guys that ended up living in tramp camps traveling the country looking for work.
The families that ended up as migrant workers. The people that broke and lived in flop houses or those long term hotels in downtowns.
That is the real picture no one shows. What does 'find new work' after the industrial revolution look like for the average person, and the answer isn't 'become Henry f'ing Ford' now is it post WW2 style middle class employment.
OK, here's 10 concise, plausible examples of how average individuals in the late 19th century might have adapted to new jobs after economic change (e.g., industrialization, mechanization, decline of artisan trades, agrarian shifts). In order to focus specifically on the "average", we now choose to simply build illustrative, composite scenarios based on common historical patterns (as opposed to specifically documented people) so you can see typical before-and-after lives.
1. Blacksmith → Railroad Carriage Foreman
Before: Local village blacksmith, shoeing horses, forging tools; works long hours in a small shop; income modest but steady; reputation tied to local farmers.
After: Takes a job at a nearby railway workshop as a metalworker assembling and repairing iron carriages; works in shifts under foremen; more regular wages and slightly higher pay; moves to a rail town, his kids gain access to a school; he loses some independence in his new setting but has marked gains in job security and cash pay.
Before: Home-based handloom weaver producing cloth on commission; schedule flexible but income fluctuates with orders; household-centered labor.
After: Employed in a textile mill running power looms; fixed hours, supervised by overseers; steady wage, production quotas; exposure to somewhat harsher factory conditions, but more reliable monthly income and potential for overtime pay.
3. Sailmaker/Canvas Artisan → Industrial Tent or Sail Factory Worker
Before: Small workshop making ship sails and canvas goods for local ships; skills highly specialized and tied to maritime trade.
After: Joins a larger factory producing canvas goods and tents for military contracts or industrial customers; moves from bespoke work to standardized production; learns new machine operations; steadier demand, less artisanal pride but higher throughput.
Before: Owner-operator of a few acres, subsistence mixed with small-market sales; vulnerable to crop failures and market price swings.
After: Sells or loses land, takes wage labor on larger farms or in orchards; seasonal work, long hours during harvests; cash wages replaced self-provisioning, children sometimes work; potential to move seasonally to find work.
5. Canal Boatman → Dockyard or Stevedore Worker
Before: Independent canal boat operator transporting goods along waterways; income from tolls and freight; lifestyle itinerant but autonomous.
After: With canal traffic declining due to railways, he becomes a dock laborer unloading goods at a port; work is bunched into long, physical shifts; income less variable but less autonomy; often joins laborer networks or unions.
6. Carpenter (Craft) → Construction Gang Member on Urban Projects
Before: Skilled carpenter building houses and furniture for local clients; runs small crew, has flexible custom work.
After: Migrates to a city for large-scale building projects (tenements, bridges); works as part of an organized gang, specializing in one repetitive task (e.g., formwork); wages steadier including opportunities for overtime, though with less creative control.
Before: Family tannery producing saddles and boots for local markets; knowledge-intensive, smelly but respected craft.
After: Enters a leather goods factory operating stitching or cutting machines for mass-produced footwear; learns machine maintenance; working environment more regulated, discipline stricter, pay more regular.
8. Rural Cooper (Barrelmaker) → Brewery or Canning Works Employee
Before: Independent cooper making barrels for local brewers and farms; demand falls as metal containers and standard packaging rose.
After: Hired by an urban brewery or canned-goods plant to maintain wooden vats or operate filling machinery; moves closer to urban amenities; job is less entrepreneurial but offers steady pay and sometimes benefits.
9. Watchmaker/Clock Repairer → Precision Machine Operator or Assembler in Electrical or Watch Factories
Before: Skilled artisan repairing and crafting clocks, serving local clientele; income from repairs and small commissions.
After: Joins an urban precision workshop or early watch factory assembling parts or operating lathes; narrower tasks but higher volume and a connection to emerging industrial technologies; more predictable pay and potential for apprenticeships for children.
10. Fisherman (Small-Boat) → Cannery Worker in Coastal Town
Before: Independent small-boat fisherman selling catch to local markets; income seasonal and weather-dependent; family-based operation.
After: Cannery expansion offers steady work in fish-packing plants, processing, salting, or canning; shift work with set hours and piece-rate opportunities; his income is quite a bit steadier, though the job is somewhat repetitive and sometimes hazardous.
Here's a sketch of the bigger picture we can see from these scenarios:
Greater wage stability: Moving from piecework, self-employment, or seasonal income into factory, railway, or dock wages usually meant steadier cash pay and more predictable household budgeting.
Larger scale means less autonomy: Many tradesmen lost control over hours, pace, and methods, trading independent decision-making for supervised, repetitive tasks.
Increased urbanization and mobility: Job shifts often prompted moves to towns or industrial centers, changing family networks and access to services (schools, markets, hospitals).
Routine and discipline: Factory and industrial work imposed fixed schedules, time discipline, and stricter workplace rules compared with artisan or farm life.
Skill reorientation: Some workers adapted existing skills to machines and assembly roles, while others lost craftsman status as specialized knowledge gave way to standardized production.
Household changes: Women and children were drawn into wage labor more frequently; domestic production declined as cash purchases rose.
Health and safety trade-offs: Improved incomes sometimes came with worse working conditions, crowding, and new occupational hazards.
Social mobility mixed: For some, steady wages enabled upward moves (education for children, home purchase); for others, loss of independence and precarious labor markets limited long-term mobility.
Community and identity shifts: Occupational identities tied to craft or land weakened; new worker solidarities and urban social institutions (mutual aid, unions, churches) grew in importance.
Consumption patterns: Predictable wages led to more regular purchase of manufactured goods, changing diets, clothing, and household items.
Don't move the goalposts, you said find 10 and they did. Keep in mind it's much harder to find evidence for average people than for "successful" people, by definition.
I didn't move the goalpost. The point was to become better informed what 'find a new job' looked like at the start of the industrial revolution, not to own me. When people say 'in the industrial revolution, people found new work' they aren't referring to Henry Ford and you know that. You know their answer wasn't relevant to the discussion.
What did losing your stables/small scale manufacturing/family farm/etc and adjusting to post industrial revolution 'finding a new job' look like? Saying 'Henry Ford existed' doesn't add anything to understanding that.
> You know their answer wasn't relevant to the discussion.
You're the one who asked the question...
Sorry but if you're going to mean something other than what you say, then you should specify that in what you say rather than have people guessing or answering questions you yourself asked then saying, but no that's not what I mean. Well, yeah, we don't know unless you say so, and that's exactly where the goalpost moving is, you literally did it in the above comment.
Got it. When tech bros/AI proponents tell a single mom with kids who is worried about losing her middle class job to ai that 'new jobs come along' what they are saying is 'just be Henry Ford'. If you want to stick with this response great. It's on point for the whole pro-AI set.
'new jobs come' is very much pushed by the AI set when people bring up concerns. I was simply trying to define what that looks like. Apparently it's 'just become Henry Ford or a Rockefeller'. Good luck with that talking point.
No one said become Henry Ford. You keep trying to put words in people's mouths because you come into this discussion with a preconceived notion that you're correct, meanwhile multiple people are providing evidence that you're likely not. If you have any actual points to share please do so but it doesn't seem that you do rather than saying the same two points over and over and moving those talking points once someone tests it. I don't know about you but I don't find that very enlightening discussion.
Do you think those people just starved to death? They had to find other jobs and they did. Now I'm sure I could find you 10 such examples if I trawl through historical records for a few hours but I'm not going to waste my time like that on New Year's Eve.
Why are you constructing a strawman in your second paragraph? No one said or even implied that, you just made up your own quote you're attacking for something reason?
People imply that the jobs shakeup will 'work itself out', but tend to imply that working out looks like post WW2, when in reality we are at 1880 level change that took decades to 'work itself out' and working itself out included in 2 world wars during that time.
No one is waiting 70 years to work itself out, you're operating on a false premise that I don't even know where it comes from, people were not starving jobless for 70 years straight. Like I said, people found other jobs, within a decade span at most of their occupation being automated.
People definitely were starving and looking for work at the start of the industrial revolution. Your response is why what I said isn't a strawman. Your response of 'trust me bro, it worked out' very much is. The economy/job/living situation in 1880-1940, the 'working through it' phase of the industrial revolution, was very shitty and nothing like post WW2.
Tramps/homeless/tramp camps was a part of life.
Huge groups of men lived in 'boarding houses' their entire lives. Most people today don't even know what boarding houses were.
There were huge populations that traveled as migrant field workers.
The reality looked much different than post WW2 employment.
Sure you said people found other jobs. But really, lots of people didn't. Or didn't find jobs that allowed them to live outside boarding houses and have families. There is a whole big picture waved away with 'found jobs' that implies post WW2 jobs/lifestyles, when in fact that is not what happened post industrial revolution, and did not happen until much later, and was not guaranteed to happen ever.
Ratelimited so editing:
People handweaving away legitimate fears with 'people found new work' are implying it is on the level/quality of life. My 'strawman' is pointing out their 'found new work' was shittier work and a shittier life and that the handwaving/minimizing peoples fears with such a hollow statement is bullshit and should be called out as such. 'found new work' is nothing more than 'people didn't all die'.
> There is a whole big picture waved away with 'found jobs' that implies post WW2 jobs/lifestyles
No, you are the only one implying this, no one said anything about this which is why I said it is a strawman. I said nothing about the quality of work found, only that new work was found. That may or may not be the case for today's situation, no one can know and I am not in the business of prognosticating so.
> This fallacy seems to be brought up very frequently, that there are still blacksmiths; people who ride horses; people who use typewriters; even people who use fountain pens, but they don't really exist in any practical or economical sense outside of 10 years ago Portland, OR.
Did you respond with a fallacy of your own? I can only assume you’re not in or don’t have familiarity with those worlds and that has lead you to conclude they don’t exist in any practical or economical sense. It’s not difficult to look up those industries and their economic impact. Particularly horses and fountain pens. Or are you going by your own idea of practical or economical?
No, horses and fountain pens do not exist in any real sense today vs. the economic impact they once had. They are niche hobbies that could disappear tomorrow and the economy wouldn't even notice. They used to be bedrocks where the world would stop turning without them overnight if they disappeared. The folks put out of work would be a rounding error on yearly layoffs if every horse and pen was zapped out of existence tonight.
They are incredibly niche side industries largely for the pleasure of wealthy folks. Horses still have a tiny niche industrial use.
Horses might have been an overly broad claim, but I basically meant that the others aren't really viable pursuits to bet a chunk of your working life on, in terms of how likely it is that their markets exist in a practical economic sense. The equivalent in the programming world now might be rare old bank mainframes. COBOL isn't a thing you go to school to learn and expect it to be around forever, but that's just one. Times do change, but if the core skill stops being bought, except in niche circumstances, then there's no reason to pursue it, just the novelty.
Yet usually woodworking is not a viable business. As a craft - sure. As a day job to provide for your family - not really. Guys who created a custom tables for me five years ago are out of business.
The Mechanics Institute, where craftsman learned and offered their wares in my town, was founded in 1801.
Its still here, today.
I wouldn't dismiss an industry based on business failures. The restaurant industry still exists, despite it being almost a guarantee that you will fail.
There's also stores with hand-knitted clothes and bears, sculpters and painters.
Yes, all of these are niche - but they survive because they embrace a different business model.
America and a bunch of western developed countries are about to experience first hand why immigrants go to their countries. I find some of the comments here funny, they don’t have the imagination on how bad things can really get.
The teaching they do is conferences - they host archeology, psychology, and engineering mini-conferences and talks, today. Whilst also being one of the biggest libraries in the town.
This isn't somewhere handing out a bunch of useless Certificate IIs. Its somewhere you need a degree to even get in the door.
Their primary income is actually from trade unions - almost all of them rent their office out of the building, because of its established connections to everyone who knows something. And all members get access to the library, equipment and most talks. (Though not the rat warrens that still run under the town from the gold rush.)
Right, nobody needs cabinets or doors because... AI. /s
I'm a professional woodworker. One-off tables in a garage might not be a great business, but millwork, built-ins, and cabinetry in homes is a great business. You're likely not exposed to cabinet or architectural woodwork shops that build high-end homes, or that just do renovation for that matter.
A better comparison to Ikea vs Handcraft would be shrinkwrap software vs custom software for companies. With AI, the custom software industry is getting disrupted (if the current trajectory of improvements continue).
In case of woodcraft, there is some tangible result that can be appreciated and displayed as art. In case of custom software, there is no such displayability.
There are still plenty of industries that won't trust AI generated anything unless it's gone over with a fine tooth comb, or maybe not even then. Devs will still have careers there. I'm talking about medical devices, safety critical systems, etc. In any case, I don't even believe AI gen code will get there anytime soon, but if I'm wrong that's okay too.
That’s the point. It used to be something almost everyone bought. Now it’s relegated to high-end luxury. The craft still exists, and you can still do well, but it’s much diminished.
It’s not that nobody needs cabinets or doors. It’s that automation, transportation, and economies of scale have made it much cheaper to produce those things with machines in a factory.
> One-off tables in a garage might not be a great business, but millwork, built-ins, and cabinetry in homes is a great business.
I'd like to see numbers backing that up. My personal impression is that you have a small number of custom woodworkers hustling after an ever smaller number of rich clients. That seems like exactly the same problem.
This comparison is hardly apt in the way it is formulated, but it is fitting when considering tailors and seamstresses. A few decades ago, numerous tailors made custom-made clothes and skilled seamstresses repaired them.
Today, since clothes are made by machines and the cost of production has fallen significantly, making bespoke clothes has become a niche job, almost extinct, and instead of repairing clothes, people prefer to buy new ones.
These jobs have not disappeared, but they have become much less common and attractive.
high quality carpentry has a market of people who buy one off projects for lots of money.
There is not really a similar market in software.
I'm not saying there won't be fine programmers etc. but with woodworking I can see how a market exists that will support you developing your skills and I don't see it with software and thus the path seems much less clear to me.
yeah sorry I've seen one off carpentry projects for lots of money and I've worked on software projects for individual companies, and it's not really comparable (especially going back to the earlier post that started this, which I thought was not discussing say the newest spotify competitor or something similar)
however I suppose at the point where I need to explain that and all the ways in which the two things are dissimilar it becomes a book in itself.
We are all talking about exceptions to the exception at this point. It's typically uninteresting to discuss...
But at the risk of being uninteresting, I know of incredibly niche software projects that were done for a single rich benefactor as one-offs simply for their personal use-case and no one else. Years in the making and quite well paid. In one case effectively lifetime employment for the sole developer.
They are obviously incredibly rare, but they do exist.
However, they are totally irrelevant to discuss in this context since it's a rounding error of 1% of 1% of current developers who would get such roles either via luck or skill.
OK well I stand corrected then they do exist, because it is probably near 1% of woodworkers who do the quality projects I am thinking of - say table able to seat 20+ people in the shape of a dragon with extremely detailed scales and everything that takes 6 months or more to make - that kind of thing.
I've been involved in building a multitude of saas apps and very few of them had any unique functionality. I'm not sure many of those companies cared about the uniqueness of their code.
Damn, it really is all just vibes eh? Everyone just vibes their way to coding these days, no proof AI is actually doing anything for you. It's basically just how someone feels now: that's reality.
In some sense, computers and digital things have now just become a part of reality, blending in by force.
I mean, it’s not vibes. I make real projects, and the failures of AI doing it force me to make fixes so that it only ever fails doing that thing once. Then it no longer fails to do that thing.
But the things I am doing might not be the things you are doing.
If you want proof, I intend to release a game to the App Store and steam soon. At that point you can judge if it built a thing adequately.
No offense intended, I don't even know you at all, but I see people claim things like you did so often these days that I begin to question reality. These claims always have some big disclaimer, as yours does. I still don't know a single personal acquaintance who has claimed even a 2x improvement on general coding efficiency, not even 1.5x in general efficiency. Some of my coworkers say AI is good for this or that, but I literally just waste my time and money when I use it, I've never gotten good results or even adequate results to continue trying. I feel like I am taking crazy pills sometimes with all of the hype!
I hope you're just one of the ones who figured it out early and all the hype isn't fake bullshit. I'd much rather be proven wrong than for humanity to have wasted all this time and resources.
I think the correct approach is to be skeptical. You should push back.
I think of this stuff as trivial to understand from my point of view. I am trying to share that.
I have nothing to sell, I don’t want anyone to use my exact setup.
I just want to communicate the value as I see it, and be understood.
The vast majority of it all is complete bullshit, so of course I am not offended that I may sound like 1000 other people trying to get you to download my awesome Claude Code Plugins repo.
> Yes. I have lost count of the number of PRs that have come to me where the developer added random blank lines and deleted others from code that was not even in the file they were supposed to be working in.
That’s not a great example of lack of care, of you use code formatters then this can happen very easily and be overlooked in a big change. It’s also really low stakes, I’m frankly concerned that you care so much about this that you’d label a dev careless over it. I’d label someone careless who didn’t test every branch of their code and left a nil pointer error or something, but missing formatter changes seems like a very human mistake for someone who was still careful about the actual code they wrote.
I think the point is that a necessary part of being careful is reviewing the diff yourself end-to-end right before sending it out for review. That catches mistakes like these.
A senior dev should be mentoring and talking to a junior dev about a task well before it hits the review stage. You should discuss each task with them on a high level before assigning it, so they understand the task and its requirements first, then the review is more of a formality because you were involved at each step.
Also communal RFCs, RFPs, Roadmapping, Architecture/Design Proposals, Design Docs and/or Reviews help socialize/diffuse org standards and expectations.
I found these help ground the mentorship and discussions between junior-senior devs. And so even for the enterprising aka proactive junior devs who might start working on something in advance of plans/roadmaps, by the time they present that work for review, if the work followed org architectural and design patterns, the review and acceptance process flows smoothly.
In my juinior days I was taught: if the org doesn't have a design or architectural SOP for the thing you're doing, find a couple of respectable RFCs from the internet, pick the three you like, and implement one. It's so much easier to stand on the shoulders of giants than to try and be the giant yourself.
I kinda thought Apple was better about this sort of thing, what with the Genius bar and that sort of thing. I pretty much made an ass of myself by assuming that, I guess, because I switched from Google stuff straight into Apple. I should probably start to work on self-hosting now that I can see I was incorrect to trust Apple...
I don't know your priorities, but I will say this: beware the recency bias: don't overweight on a news story. Instead, take at least five minutes make a list of your concerns.
> I should probably start to work on self-hosting now that I can see I was incorrect to trust Apple...
Jumping to that conclusion might be worse. Don't think of trust as a binary bit. Better to ask:
1. To what degree can I trust Party to do Thing?
- what is Party's track record?
- what are Party's incentives?
- what is the probabilistic distribution of outcomes?
2. What is my best alternative to #1?
- ... track record?
- ... incentives?
- ... distribution of outcomes?
3. Pick the least worst for you
When you do this, you'll want to factor in aspects such as: What is the value of your time? What are the chances that your alternative is less secure?
There will still be fine programmers developing software by hand after AI is good enough for most.
reply