BillyClark

One important skill for school is to look at the entire question so that you can understand what the teacher is asking for, even if they don’t format the question exactly right.

In this case, your answer would not fit into the 6 spaces provided for the answer.

So you have to ask yourself what they meant by “Write the following words”. Since “the” is the same word repeated twice, once you’ve written “the” after 5, then I could argue that “the” has already been written.

Therefore, if there are only six blanks for the answer, looking at the entire question, I argue that the answer I provided is most likely correct.

1. alphabet
2. come
3. in
4. order
5. the
6. they

This does happen a lot, but have you ever had the opposite happen? Where you go into some of your older code, and not only is it nice to read, but you had anticipated that you’d have to make this change later, and so the design makes the change easy?

That’s happened to me a few times and all I can say is that it takes days for my self-satisfaction to wane.

That’s TeX, not LaTeX.

Don Knuth (who originally wrote TeX) had a real obsession with perfection. He even thought he could pay exponentially increasing awards to people who found errors in his books.

He eventually stopped doing that because he wasn’t as perfect as he thought he was. Still way off the charts compared to the average person, though.

It’s irritating to see him looting the company like that when he actually delivers negative value to the company otherwise. Literally it would be better for Tesla to give those bonuses to some random person on the street than to Musk.

It’s a bit of a change of mindset to begin thinking that you can’t trust a PR even a little.

It has never occurred to me that other people trust PRs, even a little. I mean, that they might think about it in those terms.

This explains a lot to me.

Why does it take me longer to review code than other people? They trust the person who wrote it, but I don’t.

Why is it that when my coworkers think a person is untrustworthy, that they always end up begging me to do all of that person’s reviews. It’s because I’m not bothered by that. I already treat everybody as untrustworthy.

I’ve never understood how other people think when they do reviews, I guess.

Forgetting AI for a moment, I am always shocked when I am reviewing a coworker’s code and it’s obvious that they themselves didn’t review it.

Like, they sent me a PR that has a whole shitload of other crap in it. Why should I look at it when you haven’t looked at it? If you don’t review your own review requests, you’re a failure of a programmer human.

And I would be a failure if I approved such a request.

Getting back to the post, where is all of the review? The coworker should have reviewed the AI shit, whether it was code or documentation. The person who approved the PR should have reviewed it, as well.

Every business with more than one programmer should have at least two levels of safeguards against this exact thing happening. More if you include different types of test suites.

This post describes a fundamentally broken business, regardless of the AI angle, and so it’s good if everything is broken. With such a lack of discipline and principles, I say let the business fail.