I don't think they did. If churning out low-quality code for 6 months was good project management, the Linux Foundation would be doing it.

Those are not important at all, or the top software projects would be using them. Linux kernel is doing fine without the velocity point story tickets. Agile "planning" which is used in worse software projects is snake oil.

Practice during school hours is more than enough. Primary education is not so demanding that you need more to succeed.

In which case homework should be wholly unnecessary.

It is, unless you spend too much time in a lecture format with too little deep practice. Taking work home is not a good solution.

The measure is called an accepted pull request. You don't need a ticket to submit a patch to the Linux kernel. If you're in a dysfunctional agile micro-management environment with "stories" and "backlogs" then look for a real job.

It's not a problem, that's how you create software. You can put some of those initiatives on a "road map" if you want, but there must be space for them. 50% "slack time" is a good standard for software engineering. Your software engineers likely know better than your middle-managers how to spend that time.

The "intelligence" of large language models needs to be evaluated like the abilities of self-proclaimed psychics. You send your binary to an independent third party and who evaluates it on new problems. It's only a "Human eval" once.

Come close to solving the toy problem of autonomous driving first, we're still waiting.

I don’t know. I find pessimistic views, like you are expressing, very strange.

My Tesla drives and navigates itself most of the time. 90-95% at least, just not 100%.

As apposed to cars 10 or more years ago which didn’t do any of that.

To me it is much like the “God of the Gaps” when tremendous progress on a big problem is dismissed negatively, due to the (continuously shrinking) gaps of what it can’t do.

We are already five years late in autonomous vehicles replacing all truck drivers. We will see if we even have autonomous driving "long before" 33 years have passed. "AGI" (rebranded AI after "AI" failed to deliver) will of course still not be a thing.

I have no idea what “late” technology means.

And not delivering AGI yet is a problem?

What are these broad technology schedule based criticisms founded on?

I really want to understand this viewpoint!

Hopefully not the over-optimism of anyone who uses optimistic timelines as a motivational force. That’s not real data. Or a suitable benchmark for human progress.

Waymo and Cruise are operating without drivers which is much more impressive, even if in limited areas.

I don’t know if it is much more impressive than Tesla, given Tesla’s “limited areas” don’t seem very limiting in my experience.

But I think all these complementary takes on the problem, with significant year-to-year progress by all three firms, are fantastic.

That used to be considered a fast learning curve!

Join a team that doesn't do "sprints" if you want to do meaningful work.

It can be reduced, like by cancelling most meetings that could have been an e-mail.

In some cases, sure. But how many times have you had to attend to an email chain that went on way too long? Maybe a meeting is better if a decision can be reached more succinctly via a directed discussion.

It's better to go somewhere where your colleagues and hopefully management are intelligent enough to recognize loud laboring as vulgar and an anti-signal.