I think of it this way:

Is your goal for the software you write to need constant intervention, or would you say you'd aim for it to run smoothly with few bugs?

The team is akin to a piece of software architecture, only much more complex and comprised (partially) of humans.

You want someone to build that team and then have the team up and running, delivering value. When it breaks, or you want it to do new/different things, you need someone to step in to fix it or change it.

The fallacy there is that I am not merely "building a team," I am managing. Managing is a live, interactive skill that involves certain services. A perfect team still needs management to help create the environment in which that team can effectively operate.

I saw a wonderful interview with a former commander of an aircraft carrier. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9rGATwZRr0) Rear Admiral Mike "Nasty" Manazir speaks of his main job as being clearing away obstacles that no one underneath him could clear. That's a service that no "self-managing team" can do for itself. A good manager also serves as a focus for the strategy, and deals with conflicts that would otherwise become impasses.

They are basically the same, long black is water with espresso poured on top, americano is espresso with water poured on top.

Assuming that your observation is true, I would guess the average age of HNers has increased YoY, which is likely to have something to do with it.

Oh my god, I didn't even get to the bottom, I thought you were being hyperbolic with that quote. Insane.

Yeah that really put me off the whole article. No problem with them having that sentiment, but keep it out of this topic.

Looks great, thanks for sharing! Out of interest, how long did this take to get to its current state?

Thank you! I got the idea December 3, and initially released it December 19.

I've had a number of occasions where claude (et al.) have incorrectly carried out a task involving existing code (e.g. create a widget for foo, following bar's example). In these cases the way I would have done it would be to copy said existing code and then modify the copied code. I've always wondered if they should just be using copy tool (even just using xclip) instead of using context.

Out of interest, why that extreme? Just out of principle or some other reason?

My main terminal uses a PiHole with 120,000+ blacklist rules (not Cloudfare specifically — I allow most CDN's). This includes an entire blackout of Google/Facebook products, as well as most tracking/analytics services.

For example, I do not allow reCAPTCHA.

As a similar commentor noted, when just casually browsing I don't really have any desire to try hard to read random content. Should I absolutely need to access some information garden-walled behind Cloudfare: I have another computer that uses much less restrictive black-listing.

Not OP but it isn't super extreme if you are just surfing, it's like if the site is slow to load sometimes I wasn't that invested to use your site anyway

How many civil engineers or architects know how to put up scaffolding or lay bricks?

That was a little tongue in cheek, but I am genuinely curious what you think the correct approach is? I have seen many teams that do need to have someone overseeing the overall architecture, even if that person isn't writing the code line-by-line.

If you have that capacity baked into "Backend Programmer", then great, but not every team is the same.

Is there something inherently wrong with an "architect" who hasn't written code in a decade but is instructing seniors? One might believe that the answer is self-evident, however, I would argue that the organisational structures we see in the world (functional or otherwise) do not bear this out.

Have you had children?