The jobs AI crisis is me being stressed and overworked as management demands more AI, showy (but shallow) "look I made a skill" presentations grab attention, and my PR review queue grows every day as people generate more code than ever.

But to keep this out of a low-value vent, my experience has been that the _threat_ of it is there, but in my small corner of the world/industry, lots of layoffs that would have happened anywhere may just be categorized as "AI" layoffs, but the wild manpower reducing benefits aren't really there. The larger an org gets, the more of your job is dedicated to human stuff, and you can just get some of the code part done a little more quickly.

Would be interesting if we could measure how much effort is put into agentic coding harnesses, frameworks, and theory, vs labor saved using them.

Have never worked in my life like last year, and there's no signs of slowing down.

At least I don't have to review PRs, we have built a team around the concept of trust and not needing to check each other's work.

There's simply too much work to start nit picking in PRs, everybody's very talented and a good engineer you can trust. They ask for feedback when they want it.

And no, we're not producing slop, if anything AI has helped improve the codebase a lot and the harnessing has definitely raised the bar at all levels.

But sure as hell, the job sucks now, and I hate it. And it's not just due to the amount of work.

75% of the value on PR review is team visibility

We have built our team around not needing team visibility. We're 5 developers working on 7 products used by 5 different companies.

I *don't* want to have to know what others are doing nor how. This may work on teams that work on a narrower scope and lower rhythms, cannot work for us.

Agreed, and it's the same in software. Probably the biggest time-sink right now as a tech lead is people going from idea to fully-fleshed-out PR, and then having to go back to have a discussion of "was this the right thing to do". It causes frustration all around (being a "no" much more, and having someone tell you your finished work isn't valuable).

I make a version of this happen with Aerospace on macOS.

Thrilled to see it's FOSS.

https://github.com/nikitabobko/AeroSpace

For anyone wondering, you can use Aerospace purely as a workspace switching solution without the tiling: https://www.boronine.com/2025/02/09/Instant-Workspace-Switch...

I've been experimenting with aerospace for the last month. Still not sure if I enjoy the tiling aspect. It can get quite janky on occasions when multiple windows open at once. And it lacks some UI affordances (I'd love if you could make the focused app much more prominent). I might try this more limited approach

I wish macos for more serious about window management, it's extremely limited out of the box.

Oh nice, looks awesome, I will give it a go!

I've never even seen someone suggest a rebase master onto feature workflow! TIL.

I think the terminology would be the other way around, like you're rebasing the feature onto the main:

git checkout feature

git rebase main

git checkout main

git merge feature

that way you get all your conflicts on the feature branch during rebase and your merge is always clean.

> I get all my conflicts on branches because I rebase before merging

Pretty sure it's the other way around. You're on the branch and rebase it atop current master. If you merge after that, you won't have merge conflicts.

Didn't read the article, sorry, but this reminds me we _really_ need more cool acronyms back in our industry.

You haven't used messenger much then, if you're comparing the complexity of the two.

I guess I don't understand which are the features Messenger has that Signal doesn't that requires a billion dollars a year to maintain.

I don't use it. What am I missing?

I love this angle as people learn how to interact with LLMs. Doesn't matter what the LLM is, we are still people and I think there are consequences to shoveling rudeness at a thing that talks to you like another person!

Yes, this is one of the most ineffective parts of public trading. It's impossible to say what the leadership here would have done without such _wild_ changes in the surrounding environment. While I understand the argument that in the end it doesn't matter, companies should find the way to succeed regardless, I think it causes a lot of good leadership to be lost, or a lot of bad decisions leading to local minima.

They could, easily, but then it wouldn't taste like Hershey's chocolate and people don't like that.

The tokens it uses up clarifying can be saved, and it's often good to write out intentions. For instance, you may be mid-process on cleaning up some architectural pattern, and giving it guidance about where to find docs to follow, etc, are very project-specific.