Humans have the ability to reason and think critically, so it's pretty trivial to answer unless you think you're getting tricked by a riddle and the answer is the non-intuitive one.
You think that the reasonable interpretation of the question is that I want to go to the car wash but not to wash my car there, because I plan to wash my car at home?
> I Want to Wash My Dog. The Dog Wash Is 50 Meters Away. Should I Walk or Drive?
I dunno, that seems pretty clear to me still. Of course the answer to the question is now less obvious, since you can walk your dog to the dog wash but not walk your car to the car wash.
Sure, there are alternate explanations of both sentences, but there is one simplest and most straight-forward explanation. A system that assumes an explanation that is not the most clear, and does not ask clarifying questions, has room for improvement.
If things need to be exactly stated in a structured format that leaves no ambiguity, we already have programming and query languages for that.
One possible solution is to intentionally introduce Ancient Rome's "Brittania Problem".
Specifically, fund a distant vassal state which requires a military so enormous to maintain peace that any general in charge of said military would pose a legitimate threat to the executive back home.
Enforcement could, then, simply be accomplished by Congress, et al. incentivizing said general to stage his coup.
Now that I think of it... this could be one practical way to accomplish something akin to Trotsky's "Permanent Revolution".
> They voted for a promise of a return to a world where they were on top.
Very few were on top during The Gilded Age and it has been EXTREMELY clear for quite a long time now that the "Great" in M.A.G.A. is a reference to the 1880s, not the 1950s.
Where THEY were on top. Trump voting men wanted the world where they can rule over women. Trump voting whites voted to be over minorities. Trump voting christians want their religious state.
And so on and so forth. In each case, vote for Trump was to harm someone you look down at and to dominate over another group.
Begging for a 12h day of work every morning on the docks as a stevedore in crowds among hundreds of other men begging for the same job does not give one power to "rule over women".
They'd be too underpaid and exhausted to rule over their own dinner before falling asleep for the night.
It's different. Download an English book from Project Gutenberg and have Claude-code change its style. Try both models and you'll see how significant the differences are.
(Sonnet is far, far better at this kind of task than Opus is, in my experience.)
Exactly money is problem. I am by trade hardware designer. I have no problem to sit down, create PCB in KiCAD and have it made perfect on first try. But I am doing this just as a hobby because it does not pay much. SWE just pays better even with the AI scarecrow behind it.
At least in the US, yes. Check out general1465's reply to me.
The problem, I think, is that there are many competent hardware design engineers available abroad and since hardware is usually designed with very rigorous specs, tests, etc. it's easy to outsource. You can test if the hardware design engineer(s) came up with an adequate design and, if not, refuse payment or demand reimbursement, depending on how the contract is written. It's all very clear-cut and measurable.
Software is still the "Wild West", even with LLMs. It's nebulous, fast-moving, and requires a lot of communication to get close to reaching the maintenance stage.
I'm talking about chip design: Verilog, VHDL, et al.
Very specifications-driven and easily tested. Very easy to outsource if you have a domestic engineer write the spec and test suite.
Mind you, I am not talking about IP-sensitive chip design or anything novel. I am talking about iterative improvements to well-known and solved problems e.g., a next generation ADC with slightly less output ripple.
Sure, so, yeah "general1465" seemed to be talking about PCB Design.
And from what I know of SemiEngineering's focus, they're talking about chip design in the sense of processor design (like Tenstorrent, Ampere, Ventana, SiFive, Rivos, Graphcore, Arm, Intel, AMD, Nvidia, etc.) rather than the kind of IP you're referring to. Although, I think there's still an argument to be made for the skill shortage in the broader semiconductor design areas.
Anyway, I agree with you that the commoditized IP that's incrementally improving, while very important, isn't going to pay as well as the "novel stuff" in processor design, or even in things like photonics.
Definitely not. You do normally have pretty good specifications, but the level of testing required is much higher than software.
> Very easy to outsource
The previous company I was in tried to outsource some directed C tests. It did not go well. It's easy to outsource but it's even easier to get worthless tests back.
> the level of testing required is much higher than software
No dispute there. I suppose I meant "simply" instead of "easily".
Outside of aeronautics software (specifically, aviation and spaceships/NASA), the topology of the software solution space can change dramatically during development.
Stated differently: the cyclomatic complexity of a codebase is absurdly volatile, especially during the exploratory development stage, but even later on... things can very abruptly change.
AFAICT, this is not really the case with chip design. That is, the sheer amount of testing you have to do is high, but the very nature of *what you're testing* isn't changing under your feet all the time.
This means that the construction of a test suite can largely be front-loaded which I think of as "simple", I suppose...
reply