That was my intent, yes.

Matching average tone and depth is an important skill.

I dislike AI. It’s like the one ring. Stop trying to use it. But all these people think they’re stronger than Boromir.

I feel like larger orgs have too many incompetent idiots and useless layers of management to appropriately manage people. So you have people extruding AI slop because that’s optimal for getting some fucking ghoul middle manager to see you. The guy who fixes bugs and writes useful tests isn’t going to impress fucking Joanne who can’t even code but somehow is still in charge of the department.

I think this is a big problem at Google. You get rewarded for shipping something, even if that means killing a better product.

Other than that, yeah I guess it’s a social game. Getting people to like you matters more than you might think it should.

Haha get fucked DoorDash. I’ll pick up my own food before using them.

Capitalism is fundamentally unfair. Some asshole who doesn’t even work keeps the benefits of the work. Fuck that.

I wonder if this was a form of sabotage by an engineer, or regular incompetence

My impression is a lot of the people in the hiring pipeline are bad at this job. Maybe they’re good at other parts of their job, but not hiring. Especially not the recruiters who aren’t themselves technical

I absolutely do not enjoy big random in character essentials for long games. If it’s a one shot, fine, I’ll have some fun with the 12 int wizard or the clumsy rogue. I don’t want to be stuck mechanically underpowered for months, maybe years, due to the whims of a tiny portion of dice rolls.

As for “but flaws make interesting characters”, yes, but there are systems that do it so much better. A character’s Trouble in Fate, or dramatic failures in CofD come to mind. I’ve ported both of those over to DND and it worked fine, so you don’t even have to change whole systems.

Sisko was never glorifying being dark. In the pale moonlight is a fantastic episode, but I don’t remember it glorifying the darkness.

I like Star Trek because it’s optimistic. I want to see competent, emotionally mature, people solving problems by working together.

If I want to see bad apples I can look outside.

I didn’t really struggle with the controls when I replayed part of it this year. I lost interest because the difficulty starts out a little rough (wolves will kill you) and then a few hours later you’re so strong that even narratively scary things just melt.

I expect that’s some people, yeah. Accepting that climate change is real means accepting uncomfortable ideas. Like that they’re responsible, at least a little.

Some people can’t accept that they’re everything less than a saint. You tell them that walking to the store is better for them and the environment than driving and they go berserk. Can’t handle the implication that they’re not perfectly faultless.

Many people would rather everyone suffer pollution and climate catastrophe than those people have a nice life.

I used to care more about work. But this job pays garbage and is frothing over AI, so fuck them.

Seems like another example where the people making decisions are not qualified to make those decisions.

As with all things involving humans, you can’t really change minds with facts. It’s just emotions and peer pressure.

Not a bad post, but I expect it won’t sway people who aren’t already on board.

No shit.

One of the problems is all the people who were fucking wrong don’t suffer any lasting consequences. They will be listened to again.

Neat. I’d love to work on that instead of at a horrible megacorp.

Maybe they’ll build something to easily report jobs with no salary listed.

A large part of code review has been preventing people from doing stupid shit. AI is making stupid shit worse. It’s not defects, it’s “adding a whole micro service to get the user name from the ID, when the name is already in the metadata” or whatever that recent meme was.

Or that time a guy wrote a whole DSL instead of using the existing framework. Technically impressive, but adds a huge burden.