How many different subs are you going to repost this to?

I have both. The way Bose handles bluetooth with multiple devices is so awful that I gave up on them and bought the Sony’s. They would probably be fine if you only intend to ever pair them to one device. However, for me, I just never figured out what they were trying to do. I’d turn them on and they’d wake up a sleeping iPad in another room, or closed laptop, and then refuse to connect to my phone (using the phone’s built in Bluetooth menu) until I opened the Bose App to reconfigure them. The last straw was on video calls for work-- they’d randomly re-connect with a random device.

The Sony’s just don’t do that. They don’t wake up random sleeping or idle devices, and if they do connect to the wrong device I can use the OS Bluetooth menus to manually connect them to a given device – rather than opening the app in my phone.

So cool, thanks. As a kid I spent so much time in DEBUG, stepping through DOS’s executables, and especially the Interrupt handlers. It’s so neat to see the actual source code-- way easier to read and follow. I didn’t know it was all written in assembly, from within Debug it sometimes seemed so messy and convoluted that I just assumed more was written in C.

Hedwig. I thought it was such a beautiful movie and about half the people in the theater left.

Thank you It’s easy to say but not so easy to believe. You help.

It’s not your fault. Tell someone. You’ll survive.

14 life sentences isn’t “life in jail” in the UK, where murdering 270 people isn’t too much for “compassionate release.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdelbaset_al-Megrahi

It’s fine for the usual straightforward and easy problems – problems that common developer tools and paradigms have solved. Like a product that reduces to CRUD with a few boolean expressions, joins, and simple algebra mixed in. But I think it’s inefficient maybe even unworkable for harder problems. And hard can be scale, like moving up two orders of magnitude in throughput or entities, or down in latency. Or hard can be algorithmic stuff.

I highly agree with what others have said here, that a culture of “fungible engineers” can alienate those who want to go deep. Some folks enjoy being subject matter experts or are drawn to a craftsmanship aesthetic. And, IMHO, a healthy org culture should work for all kinds of people – specialists and generalists. I think you should aim for and encourage people to grow to be T shaped rather than fungible cogs.

I’m dealing with a new service written by someone who extensively cut and pasted from ChatGPT, got it to “almost done – just needs all the operational excellence type stuff to put it into production”, and left the project.

Honestly we should have just scrapped it and rewritten it. It’s barely coherent and filled with basic bugs that have wasted so much time.

I feel maybe this style of sloppy coding workflow is better suited to front end coding or a simple CRUD API for saving state, where you can immediately see if something works as intended, than backend services that have to handle common sense business logic like “don’t explode if there is no inventory” and etc.

For this dev, I think he was new to the language and got in a tight feedback loop of hacking together stuff with ChatGPT without trying to really understand each line of code. I think he didn’t learn as much as if he would have applied himself to reading library and language documentation, and so is still a weak dev. Even though we gave him an opportunity to grow with a small green field service and several months to write it.

NASA has a paper on how to not poop for days. It’s on the Internet. Before space toilets there was only a space bag with finger scissor/scoop holes. It didn’t work, poop got everywhere. The paper goes into detail about fecal matter being everywhere after early multi-day missions.

So they figured it out. Their system works – I’ve also had my own reasons.