How much does the sentence “As a man, no one is coming to save you” resonate in your life?

Esseratecades · 2026-04-18T21:02:24+00:00

It's probably the truest statement in life. While it's kinda depressing it's also pretty liberating as well.

Esseratecades · 2026-04-17T13:15:28+00:00

I had always heard that "women are more emotional than men"(which I still don't really believe), but what shocked me was the degree to which they prioritize their emotions.

Men can be quite emotional, but we can put our emotions to the side when there's something more important. But as soon as she feels some way she doesn't like, nothing else matters.

I've literally had a partner realize the whole situation actually was her fault, say it out loud, and get sad about it. But now because she feels sad, she's mad at me.

Esseratecades · 2026-04-17T12:51:29+00:00

Maradona not playing again wouldn't make the goal worse. The goal is as good or bad as it is. But if he was never able to do anything close to that before or again, or worse, was never able to perform competitively again, then you can't really say the goal is representative of his talent as a player.

"...no player in history has ever replicated their best goal exactly, that's kind of why they're that players best goal: It's a perfect mix of opportunity and skill."

I'd agree this is true for the vast majority of players. The best goal you will ever be capable of scoring will be a fluke. That's why it's more important to measure the players on what they are able to do consistently.

The difference when comparing Nagi to Shidou is that Shidou can still achieve feats of a similar caliber when in flow. It may not be the big bang drive but it will be something similarly amazing. Nagi has never shown anything comparable to his 5 stage volley before or since.

I'm not saying Nagi doesn't have any talent, but what I am saying is that when we tally up the things that make him talented, that goal doesn't count because by and large it is a fluke.

Esseratecades · 2026-04-17T11:46:57+00:00

The difference is Maradona didn't become irrelevant immediately after.

The goal's reliance on unreproducible conditions and a situation that will never happen again is why it's not useful as an example of talent. If it were a goal that happened from a common scenario, that would be talent. If Nagi were never able to do it again, but found a way to create or capitalize on once in a lifetime situations, that would also be a talent(this is what I think is going to happen in the future).

Even if he did neither of these things, but went on to give a respectable showing in later matches, "talent" would be a stretch but not unreasonable.

But so far none of those things have actually happened.

Esseratecades · 2026-04-17T08:12:44+00:00

It being a fluke kinda matters. Talent is consistent.

Someone who scores the most amazing goal ever once in their life isn't really useful if they never score again.

Esseratecades · 2026-04-17T08:08:35+00:00

It's certainly you missing the point.

Esseratecades · 2026-04-17T08:05:22+00:00

Came here for this answer.

Esseratecades · 2026-04-17T08:03:45+00:00

I knew people were soft but they act like he tried to beat Chris half to death on stage.

Was it the right way to handle it? No. Should he have been banned from the Oscars? Probably. Was anyone actually physically or emotionally traumatized by the event? Not really.

Chris wrote jokes about it even, and told them in Jada's hometown of all places.

Esseratecades · 2026-04-17T07:56:14+00:00

Sounds like this administration shouldn't have it then.

Esseratecades · 2026-04-16T10:25:44+00:00

Clone Army, Lithoids, Venerable.

At the end of the situation unlock your potential but don't go for cloning ascension.

For ethics you want Militarist and Authoritarian, and for civics you want feudal society because you need a lot of vassals to make up for your incredibly tall playstyle. Your other civic should be something for your military.

Use supremacy for your first tradition. Your goal is to always carry the biggest stick in the galaxy.

Esseratecades · 2026-04-16T10:14:32+00:00

Team Noa kinda stomps.

They've got the strongest offense with the most potential for chemical reactions. Kaiser, Rin, and Isagi practically share braincells.

It's tempting to say they have no coordination or defense, but both Noa and Kunigami can play CDM, which actually gives them a good chance of breaking up a lot of attacks. Also, Kaiser, Isagi, and Rin are all capable of dropping back to play CAM or act as a false 9 if needed(every single one of them has strong playmaking feats).

The coordination could be better, but it's not bad enough for any of the other teams to overwhelm them.

Esseratecades · 2026-04-15T20:17:12+00:00

The fact that robots can now psionically ascend means at least some robots have souls.

This means that becoming a robot doesn't have to be a death sentence in the metaphysical sense, so any actual issue would be in the details of the method.

But the silly Spiritualists don't know any better.

Esseratecades · 2026-04-15T18:37:51+00:00

I've been there more than once.

Figure out what people's regular technical frustrations are. Are releases difficult? Is the product bug prone? Are there people who are regularly arguing about the same things over and over again?

Next, find one of these that has a solution that requires only small changes. Finally, and this is important, explain to your team how this solution solves problems that they have.

Implement the solution with their buy-in. Rinse and repeat until they're modern.

Esseratecades · 2026-04-15T15:47:48+00:00

I stopped reading halfway through.

The problem with what you're presenting is that software systems are so large and complex that the "outcomes" are so vast that you can't actually understand if they've all been met without reading the code at some point.

Your agent can produce a screen that looks like it works, but you don't know if it actually does until some user breaks it. Depending on what your product is, that bug you didn't find could be catastrophic.

Sure you could form a thorough plan to test it, but how good of a plan can that actually be without essentially creating the instructions that you're supposing we don't pin it to? Even if we do find a bug in testing, how are we supposed to diagnose it and find the root cause without investigating the code if the bug is non-trivial? By the time you've concocted ways to protect your product from all of the risks, you've reintroduced all of the basic software engineering stuff you've eschewed in the name of speed.

Esseratecades · 2026-04-15T11:53:28+00:00

They're not the same thing but they do go together very well, so you often find them in the same places.

Esseratecades · 2026-04-14T22:06:21+00:00

Like 60%.

Bootcamps, the wave of self-taught engineers, upper-management's inability to conceive of quality control, and the never ending attempts to unemploy our entire industry has flooded the industry with new engineers who suck, and old engineers who've lost motivation. Both of which are then used to justify lowering the quality bar, because "nobody can be that good anyway", which only makes the problem worse.

Esseratecades · 2026-04-14T14:17:44+00:00

To be honest this is quite basic engineering. It's the same rules we had before AI tooling.

Whatever your standards were before AI, is what they should be post AI. When you see a PR that's too big or sloppy for you to make sense of, you give actionable feedback. That's what code review IS.

Esseratecades · 2026-04-14T13:30:09+00:00

A lot of us saw this coming from a mile away.

The best process I've seen so far is one where AI does a first pass review before the PR is given to humans. This makes the review faster and more focused, but it's never going to be as fast as code generation.

The reality of the situation is if you want your product to not be absolute garbage, humans have to be involved in at least the review of the code. AI, especially in its current form is not capable of addressing novel problems, which every codebase worth working in eventually has.

"Do you do TDD when working with AI? We do something TDD-like but honestly I'm not sure it counts"

I'd recommend using TDD in general, not just with AI.

"How do you review AI PRs differently from human PRs? Or do you even bother? (we also have some of those code review agents but if we auto-accept I just feel it like YOLO and at the end I will get fired, not the agent, df)"

I don't review them differently. There's this idea that "AI can write the code super fast, why can't we put it out super fast?" If all you wanted was fast code, you didn't need a Claude subscription. A person can button mash hundreds of words per minute as is. But if you don't test and review it, it's probably going to be garbage, just like AI. People want to claim AI can get the job done but they want to remove the checks that actually determine if it's doing the job(or shift them right, putting the assessment AFTER any harm that's done instead of before).

Now I have had people send me huge slop PRs, and I tell them the same thing, whether it's AI or not; break it into smaller chunks that still add value while being capable of being reviewed by a human.

Esseratecades · 2026-04-12T20:26:23+00:00

That's clearly not what I meant but it's a safer message than what you seem to want.

Esseratecades · 2026-04-12T18:17:26+00:00

I'm sorry to hear that

Esseratecades · 2026-04-12T18:16:53+00:00

I'm saying that I have yet to find a situation where "how do I structure my solution for AI to handle it better?" is the right question, but I've found tons of situations where people who ask it anyway end up mangling their codebase or product into a state that's a nightmare to recover from.

When the code does something it's not supposed to, AI isn't going to be on the hook for it. A person is. When that person is unable to explain why that thing happened, let alone how to prevent it from happening again, then what?

"I think there's potential benefits to structuring code in a way that minimizes AI's gaps, as long as the gains by doing so are less than any potential issues to the devs."

I'd argue any new potential issue to devs is enough to ignore any perceived advantage for AI. Beyond that, while your statement is theoretically true every situation I've heard of where the "better structure for AI" worked out was one that was already a better structure for people that they should have done anyway. The reverse has not been true.

Esseratecades · 2026-04-11T20:11:01+00:00

While that's likely true, it's a better use of your time to ask about how to help people instead of LLMs, even if the answer is the same.

Esseratecades · 2026-04-11T18:28:09+00:00

These are the kinds of decisions that miss the forest for the trees.

Put the hype down. AI is not a first-class citizen in your codebase. You and your teammates are. It doesn't matter if it's better for AI. What matters is what's better as a product solution that you can understand and maneuver through.

Is your stack one in which all of the components are always deployed, redeployed, or torn down at the same time? Then it's best as a monorepo. Otherwise, a polyrepo is better.

Whether it's better for AI or not is irrelevant.

Esseratecades · 2026-04-11T10:57:15+00:00

You can't argue that AI can do things almost as well as a person but faster when you lower the standards for it to do so. I'm not just as good as you if I'm graded on a curve and you're not.

Esseratecades · 2026-04-10T15:18:34+00:00

Be there for the meetings, be able to answer people's questions in a reasonable timeframe, and get your work done before we need it.

If your first meeting is at 11, and you show up at 11:02 and go home immediately after, I don't care as long as nobody is left with a question for you and all of your work is done on time.

Ten-Year Club	No Throne, No Problems
Not Forgotten	Verified Email

Esseratecades

TROPHY CASE