I'm worried of what European defense will look like if some day France, Germany and UK are all ruled by populist parties with historical ties / understanding attitude towards to Russia & skepticism towards NATO and EU. Not good for us here in Eastern frontier of EU.
Traditional parties have failed badly in economic and migration policies, and Russia does its best to exploit this. They can't win on a battlefield against united Europe, but if small Eastern European countries are left without support, then Russia has much better odds against them.
If you think about it, it take years to naturalisation and also has to qualify for that. As an example in Germany you will not be qualified for naturalisation if you’re on social benefits.
The immigrants that become naturalised are 99% of the cases hard working people that build their lives from scratch and want the prosperity for their families. That way they don’t need any freebies and just wants a functioning and growing economy where their children would have a better future
There is no such thing and European defence. There’s never going to be a scenario where if Germany was ever attacked or invaded, France or UK would send their solders to die protecting Germans and vice versa.
We see that in Ukraine. No other European country would send their soldiers to die in a battle fields to protect Ukrainians
Perhaps, but at least there is material and financial support to Ukraine. I doubt AfD would continue it, or provide it for other EU member states if attacked.
Regardless of AfD would come into power or not, that financial support is not gonna there for long. The new budget for 2027 has been proposed in German parliament and they are borrowing more than 200 billion Euros to balance the deficit. In simple terms Germany doesn’t have money anymore to handout to fight the wars in other countries
When AI can replace most SWEs, it can cost-effectively build systems that can replace most other white-collar workers as well. It's mainly skills involving physical work that cannot be replaced without major advances in robotics. Anything done with a computer in a office will be gone if SWE is gone.
Coding is the easiest thing for the ai to do, the rules are strict, there are plenty of working code to use as example and training data. The most important is that even an ai can decide immediately if the output is good or bad (working vs not working) and try again.
All other white collar jobs does not seem to have this immediate, automatic response loop, so the ai can only rely on a human's judgement on the quality of the work. Which is slow and unreliable. The human is not going to throw an exception while reading the ai generated scientific paper. It is inconsistent, two humans can make the opposite decisions about the same output. No way for the ai to measure auccess.
It is going to change a lot of things for everyone, no question about that, but nothing like this. Coding is obsolete. Actually writing the stuff into an editor does not make any sense.
We are now shepherds, we make sure the agents are well fed and not doing anything stupid.
For me it is amazing to watch it in action, I don't mind being a shepherd :) I'm not interested in the syntax of the languages or code formatting. Tabs or spaces? Who cares, neither. I also don't like shell scripts, batch files, yaml configs, json, xml. Watching the agent going through this shit like a tank is amazing.
I agree about the shepherding role. But, I'm not sure about how hands-off the shepherding will be at well-run companies. I work on pricing software for a regulated industry. If I were to start over again from scratch on some of the systems I work on, I could certainly get AI to create a black box that prices per a spec while showing its work. I would iterate on the system and validate the output with the help of an LLM. I would make sure all edge cases are covered and lock in the behavior with "unit" tests. I'd continue to monitor the system in production.
The problem that I see with a black box approach is a lot of uncertainty about how long it will take to get the initial system reliably producing the correct output with acceptable performance. I could deal with that, but the bigger problem I see is the unpredictability of future effort to make changes to the system as my company grows (more traffic to the system, more/changed territory specific laws, more features). This uncertainty could be mitigated by an experienced software engineer guiding what gets built inside of the box. This guiding would include a familiarity with how the code is structured.
Even if one assumes a black box approach, what the box should actually do still requires the mindset of a good software engineer. Many product managers or non-technical parties requesting software won't think through and find problematic inconsistencies or gaps in the business rules they asked for. They won't anticipate how to frame the problem in a way that makes expanding upon the capabilities later easier.
So, I think the role would look like a blend of software/system architect + product manager + dev/LLM ops + QA. At least this would be true at a company that I would want to work for. I've always preferred working in small, strong teams where everyone has a lot of ownership. There will always be the LLM day equivalent of software produced by offshore teams in the early 2000s. I'm sure their modern-day ilk will excrete something that's good enough. I don't want to work for this type of company.
I've felt the same for a while now. On my free time I have completely stopped building projects where the main motivation is professional learning. I now only build stuff I want or am genuinely interested in, and utilize AI in the process to save time.
Eventually I plan on learning some physical skills, like renovating, working with electronics and plumbing. I doubt robotics will render that useless very quickly.
I would love such a future. I would be perfectly content focusing on my hobbies and playing video games rest of my life. Perhaps the UBI would be sufficient even for a little bit of travel.
As somebody else said already, you care too much. It's not your fault things are progressing slowly. As the stoic quote says, you have only power over your mind, not outside events, like how qualified the dev team or management is. I guess you could suggest some more training for the team, though the impact of that would mostly depend on their attitude towards learning new things, which again is outside your control.
I would just treat the job as a source of paycheck while looking for something better. There are lots of people working jobs like that in slow-moving organizations, most simply don't care as long as they are paid. It's best to find meaning to life from somewhere outside work, such as hobbies.
Coming from Finland, the #1 in EU unemployment rate, I've slowly learned to be happy of the fact I have a job at all.
I agree that I care too much. I've always had a very challenging time decoupling my life from my job. It works the other way around too though, where when things are going well at work and I enjoy the work I do, I feel excellent even outside of the office. But when it doesn't, I don't feel well at all. I really need to learn how to leave work at the office because to be honest this will probably not be my last job that sucks.
I think it’s important to understand that your job need not be your identity, while acknowledging that for many of us particularly early in our careers the job is very important.
Maybe focus on a hobby, a partner, something that gives you another sense of identity or worth, which reduces the pressure of the job to fulfill that role.
I think we all need meaning in our lives so the strict advice to “care less” is tough to implement. But hopefully the strategies above will help. Build up a multi-faceted identity.
You are not worth less bc your company takes months to ship GET endpoints.
EU is rich, insulation problem can be handled, especially if we build enough green energy to bring down electricity prices, which makes even poorly insulated houses livable. I live in a Nordic country, and people have survived here for since nearly 10 000 years ago, soon after first ice age ended. If they could do it without any modern tech, Germans, French and the others will be okay.
I had a similar experience when I was young. Bought a vape and some Cannabis, which probably had really high THC concentration as it tends to have nowadays. Took a bit, didn't feel anything, then took a bit more, and boom, a panic attack. Might even had some hallucinations, I'm not fully sure what was real and what wasn't.
After the experience I felt kind of weird and "slow" for several days. Later I found out that there is also a genetic risk of schizophrenia in my family. No way I'm going to touch anything with THC ever again. I've tried CBD oil though and that was okay, slightly calming effect. But ultimately I prefer beer over that too.
Nordic style social democracy works quite well though. Communism sucks, but too much unregulated Capitalism isn't great either, as we can see in USA and many other countries that suffer from extreme inequality.
Nordic style social democracy only works well (I think) if the country has reliable sources of income separate from corporations; Norway has a trillion dollar investment fund from oil and gas revenue that is still being added to. The Netherlands earned billions from a gas field in Groningen which they used to fund the social securities systems (subsidies, benefits, etc). But with the closing of those gas fields (they were causing earthquakes, plus environmental concerns) that source of income is gone, and with that + baby boomers retiring + NL being a tax haven so we don't earn much from the huge sums passing through + skyrocketing cost of living, these systems are being broken down one by one.
Social democracy is a class-collaboration system where both the owning class and the working class compromise on their own interests (minimizing vs maximizing real wages) for the sake of stability or national interest. Class-collaboration systems -- however desirable they might be --are inherently unstable because the conflict between the owning class and working class is built into the basic structure of the economy. It's also the case that the state, which administers the conditions of this collaboration, is not a neutral party, but a tool of the owning class. Since the 70s, and especially since the 90s, that's resulted in the rollback of social democratic measures put in place after the Great Depression when the bulk of the owning class recognized them as necessary for stability. State oil revenues are a material factor that has slowed that rollback in e.g. the Nordic countries relative to the Anglosphere, but the underlying dialectic isn't any different.
I'm from Sweden. These "social democracy" systems are really market economies to 90% at least. It's kinda funny to call them socialist. Like calling a modern human a Neandertal because some of their genes are from that species.
Traditional parties have failed badly in economic and migration policies, and Russia does its best to exploit this. They can't win on a battlefield against united Europe, but if small Eastern European countries are left without support, then Russia has much better odds against them.
reply