I think if my coworkers were writing Jira tickets that were too unreadable, I would ask them to write shorter tickets.

It is surely meaningful that a leadership council and directors got funding before the people who were actually doing the work maintaining the code.

I should have said "the financial industry."

Who said that engineers love indispensable things?

My observation is that engineers like well-engineered things. I've never heard any engineer anywhere say they like indispensable things. What was the source of information, Gemini?

I'll be happy if we make it through the next three years without a world war.

In the post-chat-gpt world, if you want to SEO, you need to write for chat-gpt.

That's an exaggeration. You can give a LLM access to real things and they can use those real things to verify. I just flatly do not understand why they are not. It wouldn't make them infallible, but it would go a huge way towards improving the situation, and they are clearly not doing it. They could also use non-AI software tools to check up on the AI output. I'd bet that you could even use a plagiarism detection tool for this purpose with little to no modification, but I'd also bet this kind of tool already exists anyway.

It also shows that if the penalty is insufficient then they have no positive effect. A fine that people with a lot of money can easily afford is just a prohibition which only applies to the poor, with a license fee. Look to speeding tickets which scale with income for a fair model.

Yes

I'm not against a human doing it, I just don't get why they're not having the software do it, when it's feasible for it to do it.

Seems you don't care about users either. There is nothing in your post that shows you even thought about them. You're not an engineer, you're just an asshole.

Engineers think about user requirements.

Wow, just take a statistics class. You are embarrassing yourself.

If done correctly, the inclusion of Rust wouldn't break anything. And yet here we are.

Clearly things are not being done correctly (ie, with established engineering practices). If he actually had an engineering license, it would be revoked because of decisions like this.

Breaking architecture to improve parsing security on files that are almost always received from a trusted source is really a horrible choice. It's saying, "Fuck you" to those users.

The engineering decision is made worse by the fact that making a fallback to support those platforms would be simple, and is already mostly implemented. It's a bad enough decision that I'd have to say the person who made it is not an engineer, he's just an asshole.

What you're saying here is that no one should ever try to remedy the evils of the past.

That's stupid shit.

Fuck that stupid shit.