I disagree: as a Bachus of Programming I have successfully managed to at the same time both be a God of Programming AND having no clue what’s going on.
(The real joke behind the joke is that today I’m doing Shader programming so that’s quite close to reality and I could definitelly do with large amounts of wine or at least beer).
Here too the Schrödinger’s equations apply: a programmer’s state during coding is a superposition of both of these states until actually trying to run the code, at which point it collapses into one of the two states.
Above a certain level of seniority (in the sense of real breadth and depth of experience rather than merely high count of work years) one’s increased productivity is mainly in making others more productive.
You can only be so productive at making code, but you can certainly make others more productive with better design of the software, better software architecture, properly designed (for productivity, bug reduction and future extensibility) libraries, adequate and suitably adjusted software development processes for the specifics of the business for which the software is being made, proper technical and requirements analysis well before time has been wasted in coding, mentorship, use of experience to foresee future needs and potential pitfalls at all levels (from requirements all the way through systems design and down to code making), and so on.
Don’t pay for that and then be surprised of just how much work turns out to have been wasted in doing the wrong things, how much trouble people have with integration, how many “unexpected” things delay the deliveries, how fast your code base ages and how brittle it seems, how often whole applications and systems have to be rewritten, how much the software made mismatches the needs of the users, how mistrusting and even adversarial the developer-user relationship ends up being and so on.
From the outside it’s actually pretty easy to deduce (and also from having known people on the inside) how plenty of Tech companies (Google being a prime example) haven’t learned the lesson that there are more forms of value in the software development process than merely “works 14h/day, is young and intelligent (but clearly not wise)”
“Will horrors never cease?!”
Making a mistake once in a while on something one does all time is to be expected - even somebody with a 0.1% rate of mistakes will fuck up once in while if they do something with high enough frequency, especially if they’re too time constrained to validate.
Making a mistake on something you do just once, such as setting up the process for pushing virus definition files to millions of computers in such a way that they’re not checked inhouse before they go into Production, is a 100% rate of mistakes.
A rate of mistakes of 0.1% is generally not incompetence (dependes on how simple the process is and how much you’re paying for that person’s work), whilst a rate of 100% definitelly is.
The point being that those designing processes, who have lots of time to do it, check it and cross check it, and who generally only do it once per place they work (maybe twice), really have no excuse to fail the one thing they had to do with all the time in the World, whilst those who do the same thing again and again under strict time constraints definitelly have valid excuse to once in a blue moon make a mistake.
If you system depends on a human never making a mistake, your system is shit.
It’s not by chance that for example, Accountants have since forever had something which they call reconciliation where the transaction data entered from invoices and the like then gets cross-checked with something else done differently, for example bank account transactions - their system is designed with the expectation that humans make mistakes hence there’s a cross-check process to catch those.
Clearly Crowdstrike did not have a secondary part of the process designed to validate what’s produced by the primary (in software development that would usually be Integration Testing), so their process was shit.
Blaming the human that made a mistake for essentially being human and hence making mistakes, rather than the process around him or her not having been designed to catch human failure and stop it from having nasty consequences, is the kind of simplistic ignorant “logic” that only somebody who has never worked in making anything that has to be reliable could have.
My bet, from decades of working in the industry, is that some higher up in Crowdstrike didn’t want to pay for the manpower needed for the secondary process checking the primary one before pushing stuff out to production because “it’s never needed” and then the one time it was needed, it wasn’t there, thinks really blew up massivelly, and here we are today.
Yeah, the tools are still there to figure out the low level shit, information on it has never been this easy to come by and bright people who are interested will still get there.
However growing up during a time you were forced to figure the low level details of tech out merely to get stuff to work, does mean that if you were into tech back then you definitely became bit of a hacker (in the traditional sense of the word) whilst often what people consider as being into tech now is mainly spending money on shinny toys were everything is already done for you.
Most people who consider themselves as being “into Tech” don’t really understand it to significant depth because they never had to and only the few who actually do want to understand it at that level enough to invest time into learning it do.
I’m pretty sure the same effect happened in the early days vs later days of other tech, such as cars.
Rebrand Github as an MMO were people fight for code dominance.
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).
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.
How much would that be in Libraries Of Congress if written down?