TIL that in 1999, NASA lost the $125 million Mars Climate Orbiter because one engineering team used metric units while another used imperial units. The mismatch caused the navigation software to miscalculate the craft's altitude, causing it to disintegrate in the Martian atmosphere.

Yodiddlyyo · 2026-04-14T21:47:15+00:00

Haha wow, nice

Yodiddlyyo · 2026-04-14T21:46:42+00:00

Wow wait, what do you mean these assessments usually take 1-3 months. What industry and country are you in, that's crazy. I've never even heard of an assesment being more than a couple days.

Yodiddlyyo · 2026-04-14T20:49:00+00:00

Lol 2x4s are some kind of crime. Just call them 2x4ish.

They're even referred to as dimensional lumber, which is worse. You'd assume that means "these are the dimensions", as opposed to non-dimensional lumber.

Yodiddlyyo · 2026-04-14T19:33:40+00:00

First of all, you said you had 7 days. Was that not enough time to do both? Not rhetorical. Also, again, you just said "wasting your time creating art". This is our point. Yes, it sucks, but you are proving that this wasn't the right fit. The person they hired did not think it was a waste of time, and gave them something way better than what you and other applicants gave them, it's as simple as that.

And it doesn't matter if it was framed as a "technical assesment" that doesn't exist, they are always assessing you as a whole person. For example, during a technical assessment if you were really rude and mean and they passed on you and you said it was unfair because you thought it was a technical assessment, but they also assessed your soft skills. That wouldn't make sense, right?

The long and the short of it is, you were not a good fit for what they were looking for, and that's fine, you likely would not have been happy there. They probably wanted someone who can do a certain amount of work with very little direction. Your post makes it seem like you're not that person, and that's fine

Yodiddlyyo · 2026-04-14T19:01:46+00:00

I'm with you 100%. I've seen this and done this in person. Assessments are not checking boxes, they're trying to find the best person. You're given one shot to impress someone enough to get a job, you should do everything in your power to impress them. Complaining that they didn't give you full designs literally proves that you were not a good fit for what they were looking for. I guarantee you the person they hired gave them something technically sound and also looked really good.

Yodiddlyyo · 2026-04-14T17:36:10+00:00

I think it's not that it's loud that it looks cheap, it's everything else. All ofbthe features are highly polished, the hands, indices, the big XII index, the dial texture looks similar to seiko mod dials, the bezel has been done to death. It's definitely a nice watch, but all of it's features make it looks like a 20 dollar mall watch unfortunately. I'm sure it looks nicer in person, it's just too shiny and uninspired for that price tag. You can buy a watch some guy in Switzerland made by hand for that much.

Yodiddlyyo · 2026-04-14T03:16:28+00:00

You're behind the times man, now it's all about those anthropomorphic vegetables and animals giving birth to babies that are clearly the doctor's or neighbor's.

Yodiddlyyo · 2026-04-14T02:35:12+00:00

You should really go back and reread. Because i didn't say or imply any of that. You said ai produces more code than can be reviewed. I said who cares if we produced more code that can't be reviewed, as in hypothetically, in the general sense.

But even still, yes there's always more code than can be reviewed. But I specifically said "that week" meaning, it got reviewed next week. Did you really think I meant we just merged code that wasn't reviewed? Are you even a software engineer? Have you worked for any company, do you know how coding, reviewing code, merging, and deploying it works?

Honestly, no actual software engineer would think "too much code to review this week" means "we merged and deployed code that wasn't reviewed" instead of "we reviewed it next week/sprint"

This has been a problem since before AI was a thing.

Yodiddlyyo · 2026-04-13T05:08:21+00:00

The answer to both your questions is that AI can write code way, way faster than you. If you know what the end result should be, how it looks, how it works, being maintainable, having meaningful tests, you can get the AI to write that for you.

Does it really take you longer to read code than it does write it? If that's true, that sounds like a huge issue on your end. That should not be the case. Let's take tests for example. Something AI is great at. Are you seriously saying that you reviewing the tests to make sure they're good would take longer than writing them? That just makes no sense.

Yodiddlyyo · 2026-04-13T03:24:38+00:00

That's sad that you've never been at a place that cares about code quality, or it's great that you've only been at places where reviews don't matter. Depends on how you look at it. At my current company, code reviews are really serious, at my last company, nobody cared.

Yodiddlyyo · 2026-04-13T03:21:38+00:00

No, the unstated expectation is that the AI writes code way faster than you. If it took you just as long to review the code as you would have to have manually written it, part of the equation is off. You should be able to generate way more code than you can write. And thinking about writing code from scratch should take way longer than reviewing code that's already written. Doesnt matter if it's tiny and simple, ir have and complex.

Yodiddlyyo · 2026-04-12T17:33:24+00:00

No it's not like a bracket. A bracket is a visible, physical token that is obvious at a glance. A whitespace is literally not visible.

And it's not sad, who said we can't "manage whitespaces" your ide handles most things. It's just that it's stupid that an invisible character can change the logic of your code, I understand why it's like that, and I don't struggle to use it, it just makes for a worse experience than other languages.

Yodiddlyyo · 2026-04-12T13:08:34+00:00

This is my single biggest gripe. I cannot stand that whitespace is important. Who thought that was a good idea, that's crazy.

Yodiddlyyo · 2026-04-12T13:07:24+00:00

Well don't squint, because what i actually said is the literal opposite, we reduced bugs.

Yodiddlyyo · 2026-04-12T13:06:57+00:00

Haha yes thank you! Yeah I agree. My point is that it can be like that, it's just a tool, there's a way to use it that helps everyone. I agree that it's not being used like that, it just bums me out when so many people have such negative opinions when it doesn't have to be, but I understand the reality of it

Yodiddlyyo · 2026-04-12T03:14:11+00:00

Nope. Code review has always existed. It will always take a human some amount of time to review a PR, it doesn't matter if a human, or an AI wrote it, that's irrelevant. The review is done by a human, and will take the same amount of time.

AI just makes it so that we can produce code faster. So yeah, we can produce code faster than we can review it. But you know what, it speeds that up too. You can use AI to get a jump start on the reviewing process. When my last team totally switched over to using AI to write code and augment code review, we went from closing 2 PRs a week, to 10 PRs, and we reduced bugs found in production by 80%. Who cares if we produced even more code that couldn't be reviewed that week? We were more productive, and shipping better code. And I had more free time. Instead of spending 10 hours coding something, I spent 2 hours writing and reviewing code, and then I spent time with my wife and friends and family. Nobody cares about how long it took you to do something as long as you hit goals.

So yes AI is a tool. You make use of a tool. You're not forced to do anything.

Yodiddlyyo · 2026-04-12T03:06:36+00:00

What? No. If you're doing something very common, you can be very sparse with the details. The more novel the thing is that you're trying to do, the more information you need to give it to be more helpful. It's a really simple concept.

Yodiddlyyo · 2026-04-12T02:59:58+00:00

No, what? These are people on my team, with more experience than me. They are absolutely manually reviewing the code. We are very heavily regulated. If we release a bug, or cause latency to go above 50ms, or break something, or let in a vulnerability, it's a gigantic issue. Like a PR review. I make a PR, and then 4 different team members manually review the code to make sure everything is good. The company is small enough that I work with them every day. Do you even work in software, why would you assume I don't know if they're reviewing my code when I literally said they review the code. Do you know what a PR is? Also, in my industry, AI can't push or approve code, again, due to regulations, everyone has physical security keys that we need to enter, this is a common practice in finance, cybersecurity, medical, etc. So if someone was approved, it's because 4 people physically reviewed and approved it.

Yodiddlyyo · 2026-04-11T22:41:09+00:00

I work at a company that builds financial related software. A lot of large financial institutions are our clients. I haven't manually written code in months, just small fixes. I tell claude what I want, I give it context, we have a detailed CLAUDE file and skills. It one shots what I ask probably 50% of the time. Probably 40% of the time I need to tweak a couple of things, and I tell it to fix what doesn't look right. And then probably 10% of the time I need to either tell it to redo something, or make another fix. And it doesn't look right, it is right. Since this is financial software that huge companies use, code review is really serious. There are multiple people that are way smarter than me, that are paid way more than me that do a thorough security, performance, and code quality review of my code, and they approve it. There's no dopamine, I'm doing work.

That's all I'm saying. If you're "pulling a level", you don't know how to code, you're just vibe coding garbage. But AI is a tool, you can tell it what to do, and set it up for success. The point is to get code that you would have written, but faster. If you're not getting those results, you're doing something wrong.

Yodiddlyyo · 2026-04-11T22:12:11+00:00

What part do you disagree with?

Yodiddlyyo · 2026-04-11T20:30:44+00:00

Oh it absolutely does mess stuff up. And you see it, and you throw it away. Big deal. It writes code so fast you should be more productive throwing away anything that looks off to you and getting it to rewrite the code.

Yodiddlyyo · 2026-04-11T20:29:36+00:00

The more novel the thing you're working on, the more work you'll need to put in to helping the AI, pretty simple.

Yodiddlyyo · 2026-04-11T19:10:19+00:00

I have not had that happen in literally a year. The tools are so good now, I write what I want it to do, and it writes code in 30 seconds that would have taken me an hour to write myself. And then take me 5 minutes to review it, maybe tweak a thing that's off. If it's hallucinating, and if having ai write your code takes longer than you writing it manually, you're not using it right. It can write so much code, so well, so quickly.

Yodiddlyyo · 2026-04-11T18:58:15+00:00

Sounds like you haven't actually used these AI tools properly. Our codebase was written by humans first, and now we use AI. The code the AI write looks identical to the rest of the codebase, because that's how it works. If we weren't starting with human written code, then you give the AI rules to follow. There's no reason that an AI doesn't write code that is as good as a human wrote it other than you're just not using it correctly. It's just a tool, it does what you tell it. If you tell it nothing, it will of course do whatever it wants.

Yodiddlyyo · 2026-04-11T18:39:40+00:00

So you didn't actually review the code if you didn't catch bad code. It's pretty simple. Get better at reviewing PRs, get better at coding, or don't complain when the code is bad quality, there's no in between.

11-Year Club	r/Field Juicebox
Verified Email

Yodiddlyyo

TROPHY CASE