Meh not really.

I _could_ do my job without AI, but it would take twice the time and I would feel miserable having to type out every single character like a caveman.

Just AI auto complete alone is a massive life changer. It reduces my typing at least in half, and is highly accurate to what I want to write.

I work in a huge code base. Thousands of projects I have never even taken a single look at. At least once a day I run into an issue and all I have to do is point an LLM at it, and it will successfully follow the chains of includes and function calls and accurately find root problems.

It massively boosts my efficiency as just reading the code myself would take days.

I walk to work everyday. I simply do not enjoy working from home.

Honestly the only thing that would making work from the office better is if the senior in my team _wasn't_ remote. Nothing against his decision, but I do feel like I've missed out on the organic growth opportunities from collaborating in person with them.

And then do what? Date of birth is essentially public information.

I disagree. I used to do a lot of math years ago. If you gave me some problems to do now I probably wouldn't be able to recall exactly how to solve them. But if you give me a written solution I will still be able to give you with 100% confidence a confirmation that it is correct.

This is what it means to understand something. It's like P Vs NP. I don't need to find the solution, I just need to be able to verify _a_ solution.

At least in Mexico your government ID is nothing private or confidential. Basically anyone can determine anyone else's ID with vastly publicly available information.

Unlike the US your ID is just an ID and not a form of secret or authentication token.

Do those design practices protect you when you apply a refactor and now you don't know which call sites may be broken now?

Yes

I've commented about this before.

The answer is development branches are forbidden but releases still use a kind of branching approach.

When you make a release you use commit A from main, then development continues, commit B adds a feature, and maybe commit C fixes a serious bug.

You don't want to make a new release at C because it includes new non tested features, instead you cherry-pick fixes to your release, test the new release candidates, and release that when ready.

Development still happens in main however.

Another big tool to minimise these problems is to separate the concept of feature release from the concept of binary release. You don't have to make a true deployment to release new features or roll them back, just use a toggle switch.

You still need a bootloader to run the Linux kernel.

well, not with efistub, at least, depending on how you define bootloader.

With efistub, isn't the built-in EFI firmware the bootloader?

I prefer the Gerrit workflow over any other git-based workflow, specially since it seems to be going the Jujutsu route in the future: https://www.gerritcodereview.com/design-docs/support-jujutsu...