Not the original commenter, but for me, I just .. don't feel like it anymore. I used to be a rum enthusiast, now I've got two very nice bottles I bought myself just as I started ozempic, that are still unopened one year after.
It has the same appeal as room temperature water when you're not necessarily thirsty.
Luxury products can only exist at the margin of a broader economy. You can have luxury sports cars only if you have a market and an entire supply chain for millions of non-luxury cars.
My head of engineering spent half a day creating a complex setup of agents in opencode, to refactor a data model across multiple repositories. After a day running agents and switching between providers to work around the token limits, it dumped a -20k +30k change set we'll need to review.
If we're very lucky, we'll break even time wise compared to just running a single agent on a tight leash.
In our org that would not fly. They would be required to break it down. Did you or anyone tell them they need to make it readable for the rest of the team?
It's never been the consensus. As far back as I can remember, the wisdom was always to comment why the code does what it does if needed, and to avoid saying what the code does.
Saying that function "getUserByName" fetches a user by name is redundant. Saying that a certain method is called because of a quirk in a legacy system is important.
I regularly implement financial calculations. Not only do I leave comments everywhere, I tend to create a markdown file next to the function, to summarise and explain the context around the calculation. Just plain english, what it's supposed to do, the high level steps, etc.
Ultra-wealthy individuals aren't holding that much directly. That's what family offices or similar constructs are for.
I work in a family office. The owner is worth around 700 millions. I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't have more than a house and a car to his name, on paper.
It has the same appeal as room temperature water when you're not necessarily thirsty.
reply