The Claude-isms are so heavy in this it's painful to read: "Next: what an actual structural reset requires, once the cheap corrections are gone, the workarounds are load-bearing, and the people who would have made it easy have already left."
Whats worse can be who stays after a decade of attrition. Those that are smart enough to get a better, higher paying job, go and leave. Those who can't, have to stay. While there certainly is some talent in the people that stay (maybe they're just risk-adverse, comfortable, etc), the ratio of poor employee to good employee in the remaining pool statistically goes bad.
The Claude-isms are so heavy in this it's painful to read: "Next: what an actual structural reset requires, once the cheap corrections are gone, the workarounds are load-bearing, and the people who would have made it easy have already left."
It felt like they were trying very hard to write exactly like Claude.
Whats worse can be who stays after a decade of attrition. Those that are smart enough to get a better, higher paying job, go and leave. Those who can't, have to stay. While there certainly is some talent in the people that stay (maybe they're just risk-adverse, comfortable, etc), the ratio of poor employee to good employee in the remaining pool statistically goes bad.
> Those who can't
changing job in tech is function of having the free time and will to put in time and grind through interviews.
Its not a function of "smart" . Tech jobs are dont really require 'smarts' anyways.
Yes, I've heard this called "dead sea effect" before.
this is unreadable