All the AI advancements are making me a bit worried about my future career prospects and earnings. However, I’m trying to learn as much as possible to stay ahead of the curve and hopefully remain relevant. I’m much more motivated to start POC repositories or exponents. I’ve been doing that much more now that I have access to agentic tools.
> “Healthy dietary and lifestyle practises should remain the foundation for obesity treatment and management, with medications such as GLP-1 receptor agonists used as adjuncts.”
> At work I only have access to calude using the GitHub copilot integration so this could be the cause of my problems.
You really need to at least try Claude Code directly instead of using CoPilot. My work gives us access to CoPilot, Claude Code, and Codex. CoPilot isn’t close to the other more agentic products.
Do they manage context differently or have different system prompts? I would assume a lot of that would be the same between them. I think GH Copilots biggest shortcoming is that they are too token cheap. Aggressively managing context to the detriment of the results. Watching Claude read a 500 line file in 100 line chunks just makes me sad.
> At the end of the day, the best option is to use an attorney who would at least run the risk of professional consequences for submitting false claims.
What if folks signed their work with a private PGP key and published their public key? If you wanted to submit a DMCA request, simply sign a message to prove you’re the content owner. It seems like that could work.
Let’s consider a scenario where you’ve published a video with a public key, and you have a history of using that key for publishing your work. If someone else were to download that video, they wouldn’t be able to sign it because they lack the key. I believe the same principle applies to PDFs and ebooks.
For context, I work in Metro Detroit, where a lot of people have strong ties to the automotive industry. At one non-automotive company I worked for, an executive gave a talk about how we needed to operate more like a “software factory.” I didn’t personally find the message offensive. The intent was to emphasize predictability, quality, and fewer defects by borrowing ideas from manufacturing. These were areas the company needed to address and improve.
That said, the framing landed very poorly with many developers. Some had parents who worked on assembly lines and were pushed to go to college specifically so they would not have factory jobs. For them, the “software factory” metaphor felt dismissive and demoralizing. Morale took a hit, and we eventually saw a noticeable wave of resignations. Some engineers felt that the challenges of software engineering weren’t appreciated my management, and that they saw us a cogs on a line. There were factory jokes made for weeks and months following the all team meeting where this concept was first presented. It was a mess.
This experience was a good lesson for me in how much messaging and metaphors matter. Even when the underlying idea is reasonable, the framing can completely change how it is received. Big, high-stakes messages are worth testing with a small, trusted group first.
Thank you for sharing. As an engineering leader this is a nightmare scenario. There is so much invisible context that you need to have someone in community to have context
