I'm not as much of an overhead strategist, but I do have a rule that I follow that matches this article: if I hesitate to start working on a problem because it seems too difficult, it's because that problem has not yet been broken into small enough parts.
One of the most frustrating things in life is dealing with someone who says one thing, but really feels a different way (this is obvious after writing it down). Consider someone who is asking for advice for a problem that they don't really want to solve. i.e. somebody is overweight, but they don't really want to change anything about their lifestyle to lose weight. They value the food they eat and their activities more than any consequences they might bring. So, any advice given to them on losing weight would be dead on arrival - but the receiver would never admit that.
Working on something like that would drive me absolutely batty. I am happy you were able to find your zen in the middle of that chaos. This post truly speaks to the human condition
> I have set out to meet and talk to a small but growing band of luddites, doomsayers, disruptors and other AI-era sceptics who see only the bad in the way our spyware-steeped, infinitely doomscrolling world is tending.
I would say at this point that it's harder to see the good?
Does it matter to you whether you're interacting with a human on some level when watching a show or movie, specifically on an artistry level?
Maybe some movie you've watched has been spun up by a Sora-like platform based on a prompt that itself was AI-generated from a market research report. Stephen King said that horror is the feeling of walking into your house and finding that all of your furniture has been replaced by identical copies - finding out that all of the media everybody consumes has actually been generated by non-human entities would give me the same feeling
not to add to the doomerism, but I often wonder about how much AI-generated content I've consumed without realizing it - especially from times before generative AI became mainstream
the wise man says: to summarize is to reduce your words, but keep your meaning. However, there is meaning in everything: therefore everything is a summary
I think compiling lists of open source tools is always a nice idea, but there's some parts of this site that are a little confusing for me. What would be the open source alternative for PHP, for example, which is already open source? In general, I think it's rare that someone would be looking for an open source alternative for any programming language
I think the list of tools is valuable, it's just that it's in need of a different organization here
> To be realistic, it's important to not over-engineer QA measures with a big upfront investment. We shouldn't block progress of the project as a whole and neither will we get the necessary buy-in from all stakeholders with this approach.
I suspect that a lot of the bad code that is out there exists because teams are constantly in crunch time where it is important to get certain features out by a deadline.
From that perspective, this statement is kind of a contradiction. If every minute is vital to finishing a feature on time, then the act of writing tests will always block progress of the project
Basically, I just wish it were more innately profitable to write quality software