One of thing I have noticed of good software engineers is while they are trying to solve problems, they also communicate with clarity to upper management chain. The clarity they bring to the table was always appreciated and also puts them in the career growth path easily.
Every good engineer is an excellent communicator. Everyone who is not an excellent communicator is not a good engineer. Everyone hates that this is true but it remains true. A lot of people are very good programmers who have mistaken that for being good engineers, however.
And this is the determining factor to whether a current dev will be replaced by AI or will evolve alongside with it, being the bridge between humans and AI.
Which is not really different to what we're already doing, translating human requirements to machine code. Just that communication skills will become an even bigger part of the job.
Not knowing what's your workflow, Wouldnt this be possible in future for cowork, to read the financial documents and derive insights and build reports and you build your workflow ?
Posts like the one above you just show me how clueless people are who deal with production of software everyday but have little to no idea about the jobs of others outside of their realm.
I find it interesting that we already have patterns established, while agentic approach is still being adopted in various industries in varying maturity.
At some point, we need to begin. My initial thought was that this is a growing and evolving resource, primarily for my own use. We are slowly but steadily learning what makes sense annd patterns emerge. Also, if others find it interesting and contribute, that would be even better.
Good point.
British people don't really exist. What are even English or Scottish people? French people? European people? Where does it start, where does it end? We don't know.
We don't know what a white person is. No idea, no clue. Where could we even start?
Funnily enough, though, those considerations never seem to apply to Palestinians, native Americans, indigenous Australians, etc.
There is only a certain group that is somehow impossible to define precisely, yet is the primary target of those considerations.
I see you created the account to just post this so you're highly likely to not be worth the response but "native brit" is vague not because British people don't exist - there is a legal definition for that - but because Britain has been invaded and seen migration for millenia. Are Normans less native than Anglo-Saxons? Are the Celts the most native? Why do the Vikings and Franks get to assimilate into nativity but not the non-white? The answer to that is very clear - however people tend to hide it behind terms like "native".
>but "native brit" is vague not because British people don't exist - there is a legal definition for that - but because Britain has been invaded and seen migration for millenia.
but "native african" is vague not because African people don't exist - there is a legal definition for that - but because Africa has been invaded and seen migration for millenia.
>but because Britain has been invaded and seen migration for millenia.
So has practically every other nation including those located in Palestine, Australia, and the Americas.
>Are Normans less native than Anglo-Saxons? Are the Celts the most native? Why do the Vikings and Franks get to assimilate into nativity but not the non-white? The answer to that is very clear - however people tend to hide it behind terms like "native".
Are Afrikaners less native than Bantus? Are Khoisans the most native? Why do Khoekhoen and San get to assimilate into nativity but not the White? The answer to that is very clear - however people tend to hide it behind terms like "native".
Given the British empire, it can’t be British people because they spanned the world. All of the empire -> commonwealth had mobility. It’s skin tone, not culture. Unless this is the celts wanting to get the British isles back.
reply