Oh no? Things we would never have to specify to a human? This is precisely how software gets made and how software ends up with bugs.

It's amazing how many things I saw over the years where I said the same exact thing; "but you shouldn't have to tell anyone that."

I mean some might say that's like joining a sinking ship. Of course one man's trash is another man's treasure. To each their own.

Hiring in tech has been broken for many many years at this point. There's so much noise and only more noise coming now with AI. To be completely honest it's entire random from my end when hiring. We can't review every application that comes in. It's just impossible. We do weed out some of the spam of course and do get to real people that actually fit the requirements, but there's so many other talented people who would easily fit the role that simple get buried under applications. It's depressing from all sides here. No one should think that they aren't any good or did something wrong or didn't network enough... because the unfortunate truth is that getting a job in tech is a lottery. Something many don't want to admit.

Im working on a project to change this.

Funny that you mention 'real people'. There are a number of components that sit at the core of what Im building - it should allow you to have the time and reach to vet more (100% verified) candidates than you ever could before. I also want to reduce the explicit costs of hiring so that firms can hire more people.

The equipment definitely makes a difference but you're right about diminishing returns. In fact, at a certain point it's zero returns and all gimmick unfortunately.

That said, you don't need to break the bank for good stuff and it does make a huge difference. There's also a lot of marketing out there for bad equipment. Apple air pods and beats headphones and more.

This is essentially the death of open-source software.

I understand that projects will probably get floods of PRs and such given how easy it is to do stuff with AI now... And maybe it's AI that is to blame for it all. That's fair.

But no good will come of this strategy. I think it's even possible that we will see a massive stall in innovation now.

I agree with others, it's perfectly fine for a project to stop being open source.

That said, we also can't blame people for using open source without paying or donating.

I can absolutely take issue with people demanding things of open source projects. They can contribute or pay if they want to be demanding around bug fixes and support.

I've been a big proponent of open source for many years - learning from, contributing to, maintaining, sharing my own projects for free as open-source. I don't expect anything in return.

In fact, open-source projects benefit from contributors. So to me it's a bit incompatible with taking money. Money for what? For who? If it supports the project I'm ok with that, but I've also seen it line the pockets of original authors. I've seen original authors then turn other people's contributions through hard work into a business.

There is a very line between a funded community project and getting free labor for a business.

I take serious issue with open source projects magically one day turning into a business build on the backs of others for free. Not saying that about minIO or any other project. I'm just saying that happens.

Woah, really? I didn't know backup cameras were legally required now. Or have been. That's awesome.

Yea yea, that's a cool story, but can you make it cheaper maybe?

Yes. Because there's not enough compute. Most providers do this.

Depends on size of org. Many orgs end up too top heavy too quickly and don't have things in place to support that. That's where you get the "busy work." It's because they have too much time on their hands.

It's easy to hide in those positions. Many people don't know how to measure performance there and they get to point fingers.

My advice to anyone in this boat is to talk to the team underneath them every now and then. Get a pulse check. See where they get stuck and then set the managers goals based on that. At least one of their goals. It can be a small thing. It need not derail any roadmap or anything else. Explain why it's important for their team, explain where the team is having trouble.

See if they do it. If they do, they care about their team. If it's a small task/goal, it proves they can also be productive. Often times we have people taking on enormous goals that are vague or difficult to measure or complete in a timely manner. So a little mini goal (or a few, test a few over time) is very important here. Now, if they can't meet this goal or are unwilling to - you know you have a manager that doesn't care about the team they are managing. They can't manage that team or they can't be at the org. You can of course always try a different team or role for them.

In my experience a lot of managers (especially middle managers) kinda like to sit up there in a tower shouting orders at people, but never want to get their hands dirty or never want to support their team. They sometimes don't even realize the orders they are shouting are incorrect or impossible tasks to complete. This is where you get the "you now need 95% test coverage." That very often doesn't come from a C-suite level or customer demand because they don't care what the % is, they just want it to work.