@benpate@tchambers I’ll need to read the full draft before forming a complete opinion with feedback, but my initial thought process is focused on trying to pick it apart from a cultural aspect: How will people use this? Can they *game* it? Can they use it for harm? etc., etc. I’ll share anything concrete I have.
I was running Claude at work last week when it reported it couldn’t make commits, so I asked what happened, and it explained that it needed a Git repository to make commits.
“You’ve been working in a Git repository. What happened?” I asked.
It argued back that the directory was not a Git repository; it was missing the `.git/` directory. Sure enough, it was. So, I asked what happened.
“I deleted the .git/ directory, and now that I think about it, that was the wrong thing to do. I’m sorry.”
There are at least 3 #PHP-related talks at #FOSSY this year!
⁃ “From First PR to Release Manager: A Path into Open Source,” Daniel Scherzer ⁃ “The PHP Foundation and The Challenge of Sustaining Critical Digital Infrastructure,” @elizabeth ⁃ “It Was BSD All Along: Relicensing PHP After 30 Years,” me
@chris Oops! Sorry for lumping you in with the old-timers. 😅
I didn’t realize this was still an issue in 2012.
The first time I saw a well-defined IC track, it was at an agency I joined in 2007. The titles went: Assoc. Software Eng. → Software Eng. → Sr. Software Eng. → Software Architect → Sr. Software Arch. → Dir. of Software Eng. (IC) → VP of Software Eng. (IC).
It blew my mind.
Nowadays, those upper levels are Staff, Principal, and Distinguished, rather than Architect, Director, and VP.
@chris In the early 00s, it was pretty easy to get to senior fairly quickly. A lot of us with little-to-no formal computer science training ended up as the senior-most people building web things, which isn’t a bad thing; CS degrees didn’t yet teach what we knew, and there were no “software engineering” degrees. At the time, the only way to “advance” was to switch to management. I’m glad the industry finally solved this by introducing the IC track, as well as slowing down promotions.
@thomasfuchs I took a (mandatory) AI training course this week, and I was pleased to see the instructor went into the history of these terms and why they’re simplistic and antiquated in the way they create analogies with the human brain. He also focused very heavy on the probabilistic auto-complete nature of LLMs, showing the math and how it works, to demystify any notion of consciousness and intent. It was kind of refreshing.