Well, if you tip because you care enough about the person on the other side, you might want to try and come up with a way to leave them a tip somehow so that there is no risk it’s taken away from them, assuming that you can. Put $5 under the rug and let them know, or something.

If you can’t, you can’t, and I’m hardly going to criticize you for not wanting to catch an airborne infectious disease.

I was pretty miffed in the UK (years ago) when it came out that lots of companies (there it was mainly restaurants) were just keeping the tip money when people payed by card and filled-in a tip amount, so I very much made an effort to as much as possible make sure the actual people got the tip directly - even if I stood out from the crowd by doing it - as I don’t see the point in tipping the company.

When I tip the driver in a delivery I literally just give them cash when they deliver (and only if they actually arrive with some promptness, not if they come half an hour late with a cold pizza).

It’s a habit I got into when living in the UK because there, like in the US, lots of companies just take the “tip” money and keep it if you tip whilst paying with card.

Granted, I like to pay stuff with cash, both for privacy reasons and because it has actually been shown that people in average spend less if they pay in cash (something to do with the feeling of giving something physical away), so I almost always have some cash to pay and tip.

Indeed.

Last time I checked, it was way easier in Windows to have a VM running Linux just for Python, than to get Python to reliably work nativelly in Windows.

It really depends on whether that SQL is the standard one (such as SQL92) or with the database specific extensions (such as PL/SQL).

The latter often adds up to a “real” programming language (were you can define your own functions and everything), depending on the database.

But yeah, the rest not so much.

An this was back in the 80s where there were only 8 programming languages…

“Sure! You just have to choose which of these other things you want deprioritized since we’re already going at full tilt”

The really funny bit is that the Standup comes from Agile, which is a software development process class exactly about being able to cope with frequent changing requirements, and the Standup is definitelly not the point when new requirements are introduced.

I came here to say the same.

People in the technical career track spend most of their time making software, one way or another (there comes a point were you’re doing more preparation to code than actual coding).

As soon as you jump into the management career track it’s mostly meetings to report the team’s progress to upper management, even if you’re supposedly “technically oriented”.

Absolutelly, as you become a more senior tech things become more and more about figuring out what needs to be done at higher and higher levels (i.e. systems design, software development process design) which results in needing to interact with more and more stakeholders (your whole team, other teams, end users, management) hence more meetings, but you still get to do lots of coding or at least code-adjacent stuff (i.e. design).

In bullshit, which is itself an imprecise metric.

The inability to detail the idea all the way down to the level were something concrete can be made from it kills it well before the lack of coding skills.

It’s like what separates having an idea for a book and writting an actual book that is enjoyable to read: there is no “knowing how to code” barrier in there and yet most people can’t actually pull it off when they try or it ends up shallow and uninteresting.

The good ones: design and adjust software development processes, standards for cross-project functionality and reusability and in general try and improve at a high level the process of making, maintaining and improving software in a company.

The bad ones: junior/mid-level software design with a thick layer of bullshit on top to spin it as advanced stuff.

If you want to see bad software architecture, just look at most of Google’s frameworks and libraries.

Got it, makes sense.

Thanks for clarifying.

I think the point is more that the word “intelligence” as used in common speech is very vague.

I suppose a lot of people (certainly I do it and I expect many others do it too) will use the word “intelligence” in a general non-science setting in place of “rationalization” or “reasoning” which would be clearer terms but less well understood.

LLMs easilly produce output which is not logical, and a rational being can spot it as not following rationality (even of we don’t understand why we can do logic, we can understand logic or the absence of it).

That said, so do lots of people, which makes an interesting point about lots of people not being rational, which nearly dovetails with your point about intelligence.

I would say the problem is trying to defined “inteligence” as something that includes all humans in all settings when clearly humans are perfectly capable of producing irrational shit whilst thinking of themselves as being highly intelligent whilst doing so.

I’m not sure if that’s quite the point you were bringing up, but it’s a pretty interesting one.

There is no logical reason for you to mention in this context that property of human intelligence if you do not meant to make a point that they’re related.

So there are only two logical readings for that statement of yours:

• Those things are wholly unrelated in that statement which makes you a nutter, a troll or a complete total moron that goes around writting meaningless stuff because you’re irrational, taking the piss or too dumb to know better.
• In the heat of the discussion you were trying to make the point that one implies the other to reinforce previous arguments you agree with, only it wasn’t quite as good a point as you expected.

I chose to believe the latter, but if you tell me it’s the former, who am I to to doubt your own self-assessment…

And one property of actual, real-life human intelligence is “happenning in cells that operate in a wet environment” and yet it’s not logical to expect that a toilet bool with fresh poop (lots of fecal coliform cells) or a dropplet of swamp water (lots of amoeba cells) to be intelligent.

Same as we don’t expect the Sun to have life on its surface even though it, like the Earth, is “a body floating in space”.

Sharing a property with something else doesn’t make two things the same.

That statement of yours just means “we don’t yet know how it works hence it must work in the way I believe it works”, which is about the most illogical “statement” I’ve seen in a while (though this being the Internet, it hasn’t been all that long of a while).

“It must be clever statistics” really doesn’t follow from “science doesn’t rigoroulsy define what it is”.

Gates and inverters!!?

Luxury!

In my day we had to use transitors and resistors and, if we were lucky, maybe capacitors.

I would say that over a decade of my career was coming in as a freelancer to fix codebases where a couple of people tought they knew better than the previous ones and proceeded to add yet another very different block to a codebase already spaghetiffied by a couple such people.

Sometimes it was coding style, sometimes it was software design, sometimes it was even a different language.

I reckon thinking that just deploying one’s EliteZ skills on top of an existing code base without actually refactoring the whole thing will make it better is a phase we all go through when we’re still puppy-coders.

I used to have one like that, only with more tables (using the default border, of course).

It what’s later became known a “programmer design”.