> You’re not rejecting a bad engineer, you’re rejecting someone who doesn’t perform well while being watched.

a related thing here is that I've long believed that remote work positively impacted my career for precisely this reason.

I'm curious how you would respond to the folks who are concerned that asking people to 'just do the work' in an interview are asking for unpaid labor, and that's unfair?

(post made me lol, thanks)

Some interviews are paid.

It's extremely rare. Although I suspect it should be more common. If your salaried employees burn through ~$1500 in the time it takes to interview a candidate then you're kinda saving money by just forking over ~$500 to the candidate to do a take home interview if your employees can then interview less candidates.

Earning $500 for applying to accompany would incentivize people to farm this reward which would clog up the hiring pipeline with people who don't actually want the job.

Because we can still do things computers can't and that's interesting

this is the key idea right here. LLMs are not replacing good coders, they're electric yak shavers that we should all learn how to use. The value add is real, and incremental, not revolutionary.

I really like this, this is the perfect size project for exploring a new piece of tech. I especially like that you implemented an actual cli and not just tests.

Yes. The CLI is important. It's great for running tests and driving development. It also forces me to dog-food my own library to think in the shoes of the users of the library. In fact a number of features were added due to shortcomings exposed while implementing the CLI.

This. No one, not even the very wicked, get up in the morning and think 'Im going to go make some old, bad stuff, because I'd like to decrease the amount of The Good in the world.' This article reads like the height of narcissistic navel-gazing, with absolutely zero nontrivial insight.

That just pushes the question off a step; a chair fit for sitting isn't fit for sleeping, etc. Fitness assumes a purpose.

I believe musk to be a fool and this reinforces that belief. It should not have taken him 3 years to realize that the value of Twitter was the hot and cold running stream of conversational data.

I love this and I'm not trying to be a downer, but I do think it's funny that 'go outside and talk to your neighbors' is an innovative idea in 20xx

I'm ignorant, what do they have in 3) cutting edge robotics?

I think OP is suggesting that because Alphabet purchased Boston Dynamics in 2013, and then sold in 2017, that they were able to take their learnings from the acquisition and integrate it in-house, but haven't shown the world the extent of their capabilities. Potentially supported by the Gemini Robotics announcement highlighting extremely dexterous robots.

It's somewhat debatable based on lack of results that have made it to market.

In addition to the other comment mentioning Boston Dynamics, they are also the employers of a lot of folks that were formerly at the Open Source Robotics Foundation(?) (OSRF) (it's more complicated than that) which is behind the ROS1/ROS2 framework that are widely (not universally) used; They also have an internal division or whatever, Intrinsic Robotics (or is it Intrinsic AI? too lazy to check). Plenty of smart people that I've met are involved there!

But I remain skeptical of the top level comment's take, given the lack of any robotics product execution of note by Google for a very long time now.

The OSRF people went to Intrinsic, not Google proper.

Thanks for the correction.

Discussing with a coworker yesterday, they also pointed out the distinction I'd missed, which is that there are separate robotics groups doing research (Gemini) and applied work (Intrinsic? physicalintelligence.company; these are under the Alphabet or X projects umbrella, I infer? Really haven't paid attention.)