Would it shock you to hear that famous engineers with their own personal brand power have different opportunities and motivations than many/most engineers?
Their point is even made stronger by your comment. Engineers of this type don't experience megacorps like regular engineers. They usually have a non-standard setup and more leeway and less bureaucracy overhead. Which means brand isn't the biggest thing, the specific projects and end user impact are.
I agree but I've personally seen some egregious examples of people who are not only extremely confident in their new "knowledge" and "ability" but simultaneously think everyone else is extremely stupid. It's been absolutely wild to watch people paste chatgpt output and claim they wrote it, over and over again, even though every time I actually read it and ask a few "what does this mean" questions they have no idea and simply ask chatgpt then confidently say the response. It's so bad it's like a pathology; I wouldn't believe it if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes.
Something is happening here. Hopefully it's just revealing something that was already there in society and it isn't something new.
Externalizing responsibility while taking the value of things and calling that a net win until the consequences come up seems short sighted.
Hopefully nobody else funds this critical infrastructure piece of both the government and private sector software world. Especially someone of a country/color/gender you don't like.
Please please please insist your government money stop being spent for all the other discrimination going on. I don't think python grants should be anywhere near the top of that list.
Yeah Python grants are small potatoes. Things like https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/5/28/dei-rise-and-fa... , which involves threatening federal funding to Harvard in a way that induced them to make at least some DEI-related policy changes, is a much bigger priority.
Still, just because grants to open-source programming language foundations aren't the most important federal government spending priority, doesn't mean I want the federal government to remove the no-DEI condition on federal grant money.
> the common way that's implemented is a either a whole lot of strange brainwashing courses or active discrimination against "old white guys"
Are the common, strange brainwashing courses in the room right now?
This is obviously a bad faith take - trying to prevent anyone from even saying, let alone promoting, diversity because sometimes people discriminate (which is already illegal) is absurd even without acknowledging that discrimination happens already. This argument looks a LOT like "keep discriminating against people that aren't like me".
Constructive criticism for good faith people out there reading this who are concerned about "DEI" causing discrimination -- acknowledge all discrimination is bad and take a real stab at working on it as a whole. If your only "attempt" to prevent discrimination is speaking up against people trying to include more diverse sets of people in programming communities then you're doing it wrong (and showing your ass).
I ALSO want to not be a statin-skeptic but, like you, these things look very weird to me. The most prescribed drugs in the country and we don't even try to check if they are addressing the actual problem?
We have checked to see if they are addressing the problem more than probably any drug in history. The idea that we haven't is the result of skeptics cherry picking results that back up their point while ignoring the huge quantities of evidence supporting the efficacy of statins and other LDL lowering medications like ezetimibe, pcks9 inhibitors, etc.
Statins are so good at what they do they even reduce the risk in people who are already at low risk for heart disease.
That's fair. I know a lot of generic drugs are imported too, so maybe there isn't much pressure within the USA there. Unless the big domestic pharmaceutical companies are still making a lot of money on it even if generic options exist? I don't know.
My more professional side says invite the person to review it together - I do this for big or confusing PRs regardless of AI and it is both helpful and a natural backpressure to big PRs.
My tactical side says invite the person to show you their ai process because wow that's a lot of code that's super cool if it's good enough and then see if the AI can turn the PR into small, coherent, atomic chunks (rewritten with some arch learned from the existing project) and leave the person with those prompts and workflows.
My manager side already is very explicit with the team that code review is the bottleneck AND the code both working and being easy to understand is the authors responsibility, which makes these conversations much much easier.
reply