this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2024
228 points (86.5% liked)

Technology

59422 readers
2854 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] mindaika@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I don’t love AI, but programming is engineering. The goal is to solve a problem, not to be the best at solving a problem.

Also I can write shitty code without help anyway

[–] kiwifoxtrot@lemmy.world 13 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

The issue with engineering is that if you don't solve it efficiently and correctly enough, it'll blow up later.

[–] mindaika@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (4 children)

Sounds like a problem for later

Flippancy aside: the fundamental rule in all engineering is solving the problem you have, not the problem you might have later

[–] Croquette@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 weeks ago

It's rarely the case. You rarely work in vacuum where your work only affects what you do at the moment. There is always a downstream or upstream dependency/requirement that needs to be met that you have to take into account in your development.

You have to avoid the problem that might come later that you are aware of. If it's not possible, you have to mitigate the impact of the future problems.

It's not possible to know of all the problems that might/will happen, but with a little work before a project, a lot of issues can be avoided/mitigated.

I wouldn't want civil engineers thinking like that, because our infrastructure would be a lot worse than it is today.

[–] kiwifoxtrot@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

That doesn't apply to all engineering. In ChE, it'll literally blow up later...

[–] mindaika@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

“Not blowing up later” would be part of the problem being solved

Engineering for future requirements almost always turn out to be a net loss. You don’t build a distillation column to process 8000T of benzene if you only need to process 40T

[–] reksas@sopuli.xyz 3 points 3 weeks ago

but you could design it to be easily scalable instead of having to build another even more expensive thing when you suddenly need to process 41T

[–] essteeyou@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago
[–] Railcar8095@lemm.ee 2 points 3 weeks ago

That's a problem for HR if they have shitty retention.