It is supposed to indicate Microsoft cares only about money, which to me too, seems in the same league as microslop, i.e. mildly insulting but really not rude enough to be worth censoring.
And other insults are just words as well. It's the intention, history, connotation etc. behind words that give them meaning. M$ is meant as an insult, hence it's insulting. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/M$
I think it would still be useful. Call my cynical but gone are the days where the individual comp and benefits available to SWEs outweigh the benefits of collective bargaining.
But I think its totally unrealistic and impractical to deal with this kind of thing by being so choosy that you won't work for an org that uses Microsoft. Actually acting that way probably just means choosing to be unemployed (for the vast majority, at least).
Honestly I don’t know.
Pretty comfortable where I’m now and we would never even consider using any M$ products ever.
I know US culture is more about job-hopping every other year but I’m at the same place for many years now
My large corp is moving to Google from MS, which doesn’t impact me
much (I’m contracted out to another large corp) but I really wonder at the expense (in time) of a migration. What a huge drain on resources in the short term.
Do you review and approve plaintext plans in your org and ship whatever output Claude outputs that passes the CI to prod without further review? Because that's what we do for assembly.
I think the point is that's where all the big tech companies say we're heading. I can't say I endorse it, but the OP who just left it running for a month seems to like it.
You can determine and justify the reasons why generated assembly is generated because it's made by a deterministic machine. How is an LLM's output deterministic and justifiable? How can one hold anyone to account what spews out by a large language model?
reply