I think on mobile it’s natural to walk to the guy and tap on him. Not helped by the fact that the screen shows ‘tap’ over the highlighted tile, which does nothing. You need to walk and position the guy under your cursor, then press ‘act’.

The position yourself, then long press on ‘act’ to build when you can’t see where to put the building anymore is pretty awkward too. I’d expect to click to build, position it, then press confirm or reject or something.

Spoilers! But yeah, that was a memorable scene.

With old obscure books like this spoilers can be strategic to entice people to actually read them.

Surely all the engineers that existed 20 years ago haven’t simply retired? At the time if you told someone you couldn’t set up your own server they’d ask you what kind of engineer you are then?

> Surely all the engineers that existed 20 years ago haven’t simply retired?

20 years ago we had 5 times fewer engineers. And most of those have moved into management, other fields, retired, work calm jobs for the government or boring companies, etc.

How many 40+ year old engineers do you see, especially when compared to 20-30 year old engineers?

I don’t think it’s necessarily safer or better for anything but your job security.

IMHO it sounds more like someone who is proud of solving a problem for very little effort that Google tried to sell a very expensive solution for.

Thank you, that's exactly what I was trying to convey

Hey, really sorry, I'm genuinely not trying to sell anything (I don't have a product to sell...yet). I can see why you might have interpreted like that though. And it's unfortunately too late to edit my comment. I'll try to think less sales-y next time.

I think you need to calibrate your perception of things you read.

That as it may be. I spot bugs a lot faster when I didn’t write the code than when I did.

Well, I’d wager there are quite a few more bugs, so naturally it should be easier to spot a few.

When you write code yourself, you're convinced each line is correct as you write it. That assumption is hard to shake, so you spend hours hunting for bugs that turn out to be obvious. When reading AI-generated code fresh, you lack that assumption. Bugs can jump out faster. That's at least my naive explanation to this phenomenon

> 2 - 3 years there will be so much technical debt that we'll have to throw away entire pieces of software.

That happens just as often without AI. Maybe the people that like it all thave experience with trashing multiple sets of products over the course of their life?

> What is the logic here?

It is right often enough that your time is better spent testing the functionality than the code.

Sometimes it’s not right, and you need to re-instruct (often) or dive in (not very often).

I can’t imagine retesting all the functionality of a well established product for possible regressions not being stupidly time consuming. This is the very reason why we have unit tests in the first place, and why they are far more numerous in tests than end-to-end ones.

Need to be in the top 5% of AI users while staying in your budget of $50/month!

I think that feeling is fairly common across the entire population. Play more tag, it’ll help.