Aneurysm9

@aneurysm9.com

Reminder: code review is not "to catch mistakes", it is a tool for understanding to limit bus/lottery factor first and foremost. When code is written (if you're lucky) by one human, having the second human abdicate their judgment to the machine is actively harmful to your team's code understanding.

Luis@lbruno.org · last yr.

also, the one i'm hearing which is most insidious is the “AI code/peer review” use-case: that's how you deskill people but we'll be told that humans are still in the loop! and if they ever were skilled they are actively becoming deskilled by the “AI review” should be obvious, but zero talk re: it

Earlier this week @hazelweakly.me wrote about what she calls "observability 3.0". I argue our core challenge is not surfacing insights to eng-adjacent teams, but the reverse -- helping engineering teams understand and explain their work in the language of the business. charity.wtf/2024/12/20/o...

On Versioning Observabilities (1.0, 2.0, 3.0…10.0?!?)

Hazel Weakly, you little troublemaker.  As I whined to Hazel over text, after she sweetly sent me a preview draft of her post: “PLEASE don’t post this! I feel like I spend all my time trying to hel…

charity.wtf

If your experience with OpenTelemetry looks like a more complicated, worse version of adding an APM vendor I don’t fault you for being skeptical about the project Let me make the case why that will improve and take us far beyond what vendors could ever offer jeremymorrell.dev/blog/opentel...

On OpenTelemetry and the value of Standards | Jeremy Morrell

OpenTelemetry is not perfect, but the value of having one shared standard for instrumentation and telemetry is huge

jeremymorrell.dev

PSA: MODERATION LISTS ARE MIGRATING FROM THIS ACCOUNT to @skysentry.bsky.social If you're subscribed to any of the lists, please re-subscribe to them at the new owner by November 30th, after which I will no longer be maintaining them, and the lists will be removed from this account. Thank you.