Roman here. We have a joke that we cannot dig a hole in the ground without finding a piece of our past, and that makes us hard to progress. Now we are also finding pieces of someone else's past. We are doomed.

If my kids cannot change a boolean into a json, they do not deserve the [redacted]

I don't work with json very often, and this is probably a joke, but how would that even work?

op meant "in" not "into"

They will stop bombing as soon as Iran comes back to the situation for which it was bombed.

Big up for the reference

That's peter principle 101

Indeed, with a big BUT: you don't want to overvalue loyalty in respect of competence. You don't want to have a boss that is not good but "is here since forever".

Instead, reward them economically. Everytime the company takes a leap forward, make clear to them that they were important for the process, and share some profit.

And make clear that being important in a moment doesn't automatically mean they will be important in the future: they will have to compete on results, like everyone else.

2025: I wonder if I can be in the industry in the future

2026: I wonder if I want to be in the industry in the future

A thesaurus for gaslighting

I'm sure there is at least one security-claiming act that can be used to override that sentence

I'm glad LLMs will make these conversations obsolete, just like linters did to tab-vs-spaces

Care to elaborate? It's not obvious to me why/how that would happen. In fact, my experience so far tells me that code with tons of "why" comments (and possibly some "what"s as well) makes LLMs less likely to break stuff.