jj4211

The front grill isn't a problem for Ferrari design language. The 296 "grill" is mostly the haunches. An electric 296 would just flatten that out.

Similar story on drag, once you get rid of the mid engine air intake, drag would probably be within respectable drag for EV.

Questions would be about if they want a lot of battery range. This would screw up weight and ride height.

Well obviously the first name should come first and the last name comes last. That's universal for all languages. It's just the definition of first or last.

Just the question is whether first name is personal or family name...

Well, it's complicated. Basically my team has done this sort of work for a long time, but for a different market segment. This is a new market segment, but with respect to our work it acts the same. However executives don't understand that, so they spun up another organization to deal. Further, the company that was supposed to do it instead of us had brand recognition in the market despite being terrible at the part of the work that we know how to do.

So we weren't being replaced, we were seen as not relevant to this "new" market. That vendor wasn't going to touch our market with a thousand foot pole.

What we seem to be settling into is for us to do it our usual way, then hand over to that revered company to finish it in a way to cash in on brand recognition and admittedly do things a bit more particular for that market after our usual jobs are done.

Well, salaried, so not 'overtime' per se, but at least I walked away with a bonus equivalent to about 4 months pay. Not solely due to that one incident, but that incident put things over the top.

garbage code that people submit and demand I fix because “Claude said it should work”

Man, feel that in my soul. Someone had an issue and instead of asking for help they just sicked Claude on it. Claude replaced an error handling that induced a failure if it didn't recognize data for management with code that just assigned random meaning to the data and mangled it. But the user insisted it was the right fix because it seemed to work in the moment. Still trying to get a look at the data they have that is causing the issue as they keep insisting the problem is 'fixed' instead of the silent data corruption I know it to be. Every freaking day I get AI slop suggestions from people who are unable to assess the slop and asking me to "just fix it, AI did most of the work already". People who think I can't ask Copilot or ChatGPT or Claude myself if I wanted, and think their slop to expound upon their point helps me, when I would rather just be fed the same thing they fed to a prompt instead. I'll AI it up if it will help me, but all they did was bury their point in a bunch of obnoxious fluff.

fix it by abandoning the digital wherever possible and living in the real world. Touching grass, talking face to face with real human beings

Fun fact, an organization around me has started doing in person "job fairs" again, after years of saying "just apply online", precisely because the online model of engagement has just become useless noisy.

It's less about the AI and more about how the AI is used by folks. It all boils down to how it lets people who don't care about the quality produce way more than it lets people who care about quality produce, even as it helps both.

My experience browsing video content to discover new stuff is pretty much ruined. Folks that really don't have a good idea prompt up crap. AI speeds up folks that don't care about quality orders of magnitude more than it speeds up people that care about quality, so the flood favors low quality. Then there's the knockoffs. Something looks like a creator that I liked and I'm not paying much attention and then 30 seconds in I'm wondering why the hell it's so soul meltingly hollow, then I catch on it's an AI knock-off riding the wave of a more popular channel.

In software development, folks that formerly trusted in the developers to do the job as they see fit now think themselves experts on software development. They prompted up "hello world" type fodder and now they are micromanaging folks with decades of experience. This happens to some extent with every tech fad, but this one is just way worse. Then there are people who have basically been pundits, high on opinion, low on actionable anything. They've always been annoying and pretty much wrong, but you could pretty much tune them out because everything they said amounted to nothing. Yeah, it's annoying that they get paid to basically talk the way executives like, but at least they didn't actually impact anything. Now they prompt up their bad ideas into pretty bad concepts, and there's increased demand to pay attention to "almost realized concepts" that they convinced their executive friend looks good.

In terms of what to change, basically I don't see a good way other than going back and just not figuring out this tech in the first place. I don't see a path for leveling the playing field to penalize slop, for the narcissistic know-it-alls to go back to being on the sidelines.

Even as we work with the whole AI ecosystem as best as possible, we are bombarded by people who think AI has made them way more competent. Management that has never done the technical work and still hasn't telling us we must be doing it wrong if the AI isn't perfect or if we use up too many tokens. Arguing with people who have an AI generated report of a misbehavior, the AI was incorrect but everyone says the AI should be right, so rather than let us debug the issue, they keep insisting we didn't need that, just merge Claude's changes because Claiude obviously knows more than us, look at that verbose writeup it made, that can't just be wrong!

Project proposals that are someones bad idea and expecting a big bonus for a half baked idea vaguely realized by a single prompt. The same people that "had a great app idea" behalf recognized as terrible now can vaguely manifest their bad ideas. A demonstration that was full of incorrect results and failed to implement any security get praise for "looking impressive".

The new ways have utility, but the environment based on how the most obnoxious people are using it is intolerable. These same people have always been there and always been a bit insufferable, but now they are slopping out like never before, and alignment with the hot thing gives them more authority than ever.

I totally understand bailing on this clusterfuck for those that can afford it.

I'll say that it is only one thing.

So if I just sat around burning tokens without anyone seeming to have any idea what I actually do around here I'd be out. If I just did my job but didn't appear to use tokens, management would ding me for being some luddite.

To show the juxtaposition of two stories in his feed

When the bubble bursts I’m guessing at least a couple of the companies Micron signed SCAs with will fold and Micron won’t get anything.

This is the key. The plan for a lot of these companies is that only two outcomes exist, unimaginable success where being gouged hardly matters or just utter failure and the obligations go away in bankruptcy.

Alternatively, they just break the SCA and maybe pay some penalty less than their obligation otherwise would have been. I have seen companies sign agreements knowing up front they will break the agreements, but the contract penalties still make business sense.

I'm still waiting to see what happens when OpenAI decides to back out of some of their purchasing obligations. It's bound to happen, even if OpenAI does great. If folks think the tech sector is a bit wobbly the past few days, it pales in comparison to what such an announcement would do to the industry.

I think the logic for the customers is that either: A) It will work out exactly as predicted and we can afford whatever the hell we want, so it's worth it to have secured supply

B) Declare bankruptcy, the purchasing obligations no longer matter.

This as a good example of how people fail upwards.

If he had listened to us from the onset, this would have proceeded, he would have been maybe casually acknowledged for a solid enough job, business as usual even though the money in play was abnormally astronomical, leadership would have just taken this part of the business for granted.

Because he didn't listen, he created a disaster. Because the disaster had just unimaginably large amounts of money attached with just stupid amounts more potential money in followup business, the executives were panicked. The ability to recover it on schedule suddenly they appreciated it, and he manages to bask in the spotlight.

Ok, so what if we had left him out to dry? We probably would have been fired. He probably would have too, but declining to assist and risking millions of dollars of business screws you too.

The upside? Well, this was noteworthy because this was the first time in many years I had to lose a weekend, so it's not super common. To the extent stuff like this happens more regularly, it usually isn't this bad and is more annoying but on normal business hours. This also happened close to review cycles, and was fantastic relevant information to hold over management so while I didn't get broad recognition, I did walk away with the second largest bonus of my career. Also the project manager learned the lesson and his standard game plan for this sort of thing is now consistent with what we said. He fails upward, but at least he's an ally for the foreseeable future.