Gidi
@gidim.bsky.social
Enough. חלאס. خاس
Nature advocate striving to halt biodiversity loss & tackle climate change 🌿.
Experienced Head of Engineering and technical founder in the NatureTech space.
Thoughts on Engineering at gidi.io.
שלום عَلَيْكُمْ ✌️
Nature advocate striving to halt biodiversity loss & tackle climate change 🌿.
Experienced Head of Engineering and technical founder in the NatureTech space.
Thoughts on Engineering at gidi.io.
שלום عَلَيْكُمْ ✌️
As someone who worked in Ad Tech I can tell you that with high likelihood Ads are the culprit.
October 8, 2025 at 4:59 PM
As someone who worked in Ad Tech I can tell you that with high likelihood Ads are the culprit.
Pitkah Tovah.
May we have less to reflect on next year.
May we have less to reflect on next year.
October 1, 2025 at 10:17 PM
Pitkah Tovah.
May we have less to reflect on next year.
May we have less to reflect on next year.
I have a fear, which might be totally unfounded but I guess we'll find out, that folks are going "AI first" when trying to solve problems before they even bother trying to figure it out.
If that's the case, I worry engineers are going to lose their problem solving skills very quickly.
If that's the case, I worry engineers are going to lose their problem solving skills very quickly.
September 26, 2025 at 12:20 PM
I have a fear, which might be totally unfounded but I guess we'll find out, that folks are going "AI first" when trying to solve problems before they even bother trying to figure it out.
If that's the case, I worry engineers are going to lose their problem solving skills very quickly.
If that's the case, I worry engineers are going to lose their problem solving skills very quickly.
Haha yeah, I guess, for boomers and gen X it's a smaller proportion of the generation so less representative....
But yeah, bad generalisation.
But yeah, bad generalisation.
September 14, 2025 at 2:34 PM
Haha yeah, I guess, for boomers and gen X it's a smaller proportion of the generation so less representative....
But yeah, bad generalisation.
But yeah, bad generalisation.
I think we're the only generation that had to figure out how things worked to get basic things done on computers....
Though they might be a bias on my end.
Though they might be a bias on my end.
September 14, 2025 at 10:28 AM
I think we're the only generation that had to figure out how things worked to get basic things done on computers....
Though they might be a bias on my end.
Though they might be a bias on my end.
I was hiking in fjordland last year and saw a flock of parrots above... Expecting a mischievous Kea to decend I felt for my car keys when a unusual screech came out above - it was no Kea, it was a Kaka. ☺️
My first time spotting them out in the wild.
My first time spotting them out in the wild.
September 14, 2025 at 9:48 AM
I was hiking in fjordland last year and saw a flock of parrots above... Expecting a mischievous Kea to decend I felt for my car keys when a unusual screech came out above - it was no Kea, it was a Kaka. ☺️
My first time spotting them out in the wild.
My first time spotting them out in the wild.
Schemaless databases lack a schema in the same way dynamic languages lack a type system.
That is to say, they don't, it's just abstracted away.
As a result, you still have migrations, and they are often harder.
I always start with postgres unless I *know* it makes the wrong tradeoffs for my domain
That is to say, they don't, it's just abstracted away.
As a result, you still have migrations, and they are often harder.
I always start with postgres unless I *know* it makes the wrong tradeoffs for my domain
September 12, 2025 at 12:59 PM
Schemaless databases lack a schema in the same way dynamic languages lack a type system.
That is to say, they don't, it's just abstracted away.
As a result, you still have migrations, and they are often harder.
I always start with postgres unless I *know* it makes the wrong tradeoffs for my domain
That is to say, they don't, it's just abstracted away.
As a result, you still have migrations, and they are often harder.
I always start with postgres unless I *know* it makes the wrong tradeoffs for my domain
Same, I've always used the EM dash in my writing but—if I'm being honest—I use it way more now that folks are using it to misclassify content as LLM generated.
September 11, 2025 at 11:32 PM
Same, I've always used the EM dash in my writing but—if I'm being honest—I use it way more now that folks are using it to misclassify content as LLM generated.
Haha, I wish you health to use it.
September 11, 2025 at 8:17 PM
Haha, I wish you health to use it.
This definitely falls into the category of "notebooks I'll buy but never use because I'm waiting for a worthy enough idea".
I already have a half dozen in this category. 😅
I already have a half dozen in this category. 😅
September 11, 2025 at 7:46 PM
This definitely falls into the category of "notebooks I'll buy but never use because I'm waiting for a worthy enough idea".
I already have a half dozen in this category. 😅
I already have a half dozen in this category. 😅
I've long felt that testing is a dying art, but LLMs feel like the a stab to the heart of this art.
Its unfortunate, because I actually find LLMs pretty good at generating the green implementation for my red failing TDD tests. 🤷
But most engineers don't TDD so it's just generating noise
Its unfortunate, because I actually find LLMs pretty good at generating the green implementation for my red failing TDD tests. 🤷
But most engineers don't TDD so it's just generating noise
September 11, 2025 at 1:14 PM
I've long felt that testing is a dying art, but LLMs feel like the a stab to the heart of this art.
Its unfortunate, because I actually find LLMs pretty good at generating the green implementation for my red failing TDD tests. 🤷
But most engineers don't TDD so it's just generating noise
Its unfortunate, because I actually find LLMs pretty good at generating the green implementation for my red failing TDD tests. 🤷
But most engineers don't TDD so it's just generating noise
I glare at the terminal in disgust. 😑
The tests are wrong. 🙄
I haven't implemented the code yet. 🤨
The tests are wrong. 🙄
I haven't implemented the code yet. 🤨
September 10, 2025 at 8:03 PM
I glare at the terminal in disgust. 😑
The tests are wrong. 🙄
I haven't implemented the code yet. 🤨
The tests are wrong. 🙄
I haven't implemented the code yet. 🤨
Haha, not my description but theirs 😉.
September 10, 2025 at 6:12 PM
Haha, not my description but theirs 😉.
Not exactly.
To better gauge hype versus reality, its a visualization showing the distance between the proportion of respondents who want to use a technology (“🔵desired”) and the proportion of users that have used the same technology in the past year and want to continue using it (“🔴admired”).
To better gauge hype versus reality, its a visualization showing the distance between the proportion of respondents who want to use a technology (“🔵desired”) and the proportion of users that have used the same technology in the past year and want to continue using it (“🔴admired”).
September 10, 2025 at 5:49 PM
Not exactly.
To better gauge hype versus reality, its a visualization showing the distance between the proportion of respondents who want to use a technology (“🔵desired”) and the proportion of users that have used the same technology in the past year and want to continue using it (“🔴admired”).
To better gauge hype versus reality, its a visualization showing the distance between the proportion of respondents who want to use a technology (“🔵desired”) and the proportion of users that have used the same technology in the past year and want to continue using it (“🔴admired”).
Agreed, new grads are high ROI - but many employers hire grads for the low paycheck and then fail to invest in them, resulting in little to no ROI.
I don't want to further reduce the pool of jobs for new grads - but folks should only expect to see a return if they're willing to invest.
I don't want to further reduce the pool of jobs for new grads - but folks should only expect to see a return if they're willing to invest.
September 6, 2025 at 9:17 AM
Agreed, new grads are high ROI - but many employers hire grads for the low paycheck and then fail to invest in them, resulting in little to no ROI.
I don't want to further reduce the pool of jobs for new grads - but folks should only expect to see a return if they're willing to invest.
I don't want to further reduce the pool of jobs for new grads - but folks should only expect to see a return if they're willing to invest.
This gives me two thoughts:
1. They're probably midway through a fundraise and the CEO is pushing because he sold investors a story about them being an AI company
2. I should go back and ensure my ancient coinbase account is full wiped because they are definitely going to have an infosec incident
1. They're probably midway through a fundraise and the CEO is pushing because he sold investors a story about them being an AI company
2. I should go back and ensure my ancient coinbase account is full wiped because they are definitely going to have an infosec incident
September 4, 2025 at 7:08 AM
This gives me two thoughts:
1. They're probably midway through a fundraise and the CEO is pushing because he sold investors a story about them being an AI company
2. I should go back and ensure my ancient coinbase account is full wiped because they are definitely going to have an infosec incident
1. They're probably midway through a fundraise and the CEO is pushing because he sold investors a story about them being an AI company
2. I should go back and ensure my ancient coinbase account is full wiped because they are definitely going to have an infosec incident
Yes, obviously - that was actually not the problem in our case.
Our concern was whether it's *actually* doing what stakeholders thought it was doing (surprise, surprise, it wasn't) and whether we can fix that without breaking a bunch along the way (it's a complex domain and the code was terrible).
Our concern was whether it's *actually* doing what stakeholders thought it was doing (surprise, surprise, it wasn't) and whether we can fix that without breaking a bunch along the way (it's a complex domain and the code was terrible).
August 29, 2025 at 8:12 AM
Yes, obviously - that was actually not the problem in our case.
Our concern was whether it's *actually* doing what stakeholders thought it was doing (surprise, surprise, it wasn't) and whether we can fix that without breaking a bunch along the way (it's a complex domain and the code was terrible).
Our concern was whether it's *actually* doing what stakeholders thought it was doing (surprise, surprise, it wasn't) and whether we can fix that without breaking a bunch along the way (it's a complex domain and the code was terrible).
We're now at a place where most the code is still a black box that we don't touch, but the area where we had to make changes is refactored, testable and we now know what it's doing.
Its changed how I think about working with legacy code. A silver lining on the otherwise shitstorm that are LLMs. 😅
Its changed how I think about working with legacy code. A silver lining on the otherwise shitstorm that are LLMs. 😅
August 29, 2025 at 7:38 AM
We're now at a place where most the code is still a black box that we don't touch, but the area where we had to make changes is refactored, testable and we now know what it's doing.
Its changed how I think about working with legacy code. A silver lining on the otherwise shitstorm that are LLMs. 😅
Its changed how I think about working with legacy code. A silver lining on the otherwise shitstorm that are LLMs. 😅
We used an LLM to backfill tests and then reviewed the tests to confirm we understood what each one was testing, and translated that into a "tested requirement".
Its still legacy. It's still shit. But at least we can refactor with a *semblance* of confidence we haven't broken anything.
Its still legacy. It's still shit. But at least we can refactor with a *semblance* of confidence we haven't broken anything.
August 29, 2025 at 7:38 AM
We used an LLM to backfill tests and then reviewed the tests to confirm we understood what each one was testing, and translated that into a "tested requirement".
Its still legacy. It's still shit. But at least we can refactor with a *semblance* of confidence we haven't broken anything.
Its still legacy. It's still shit. But at least we can refactor with a *semblance* of confidence we haven't broken anything.