It sounds like one potential interpretation of his behavior is that he values his own time more than your time.

I wonder if that's occurred to him.

Everybody values their own time more than other's.

The fix, imho, is for the reviewers to also use ai to review the code. However, the ultimate responsibility for the outcome(s) should be on the committer - you commit it, you own it, so to speak. If there's an incident, they need to be the one paged in the middle of the night. Bugs resulting from it will land on their desk.

The reviewers aren't a shield/safety net.

Speak for yourself. I highly value other people’s time, to the extent that I should probably value my time higher than I do for my own sake.

Doing something that wastes other people’s time or makes more work for them than necessary makes me feel awful.

I’ve always worked in a way that respects other people’s time and I always tried to make sure I did everything I could to minimize the work I’m asking someone to do for me.

Well its obviously infeasible as during the time of the incident it is not yet known what is wrong and who caused it.

Is it even actually good to get to a point of blaming someone for an incident?

> Everybody values their own time more than other's.

This is false, you’re just oblivious to people who grew up in conditions that would make them that way.

AI and companies reward sociopathic behavior. When he eventually complains to his boss that his work isn't being merged and it's been done for days/weeks/months that will filter up and look bad on the people holding him up.

At that point then disable merge checks and let them merge without a review. If there is a problem it's on them

This is my current strategy, it's working great. Half the team has been fired for slop and the other half got fired for not doing anything.

I'm sure this person's manager knows that having trouble getting PRs reviewed can (but not always) be a signal of a deeper problem. It could be that no one one the team knows the domain, it could be that no one like the person, but most likely it's that the PRs are frequently bad and no one wants to bother.

Or, I might say, why review the PR. Get Claude to do it? Why do I need to spend my time and attention and this person does not?

Well, what's the solution here, he should ship less stuff?

The solution is that he spends more time scoping the size of the PR so that it’s reviewable and understands the code he’s submitting well enough to have discussions about it. And that he does so human to human so that they can come to mutual understanding.

Less WIP is better for the throughput. If you saturate all the review bandwidth you're just wasting your time creating more PRs, the time would be better spent helping others get their PRs merged.

> Well, what's the solution here, he should ship less stuff?

The solution is in the title - he wants human attention, he needs to demonstrate human effort.

He isn’t shipping anything. Asking for code review is not shipping.

This is the complaint:

> he doesn't make it easy for the team to look at.

He has traded readability for volume. The lack of readability is causing him to ship less. This was a bad trade because the readability is the bottleneck not the code creation. He should improve readability.

>> the readability is the bottleneck not the code creation. He should improve readability.

See this is where I think LLMs can actually improve software engineering. Use them to write better code not more code. The most useful LLM at work so far is the code review bot that occasionally finds things that I missed even with a careful self review and good test coverage.

We should be prompting the LLMs to review our hand written code for security, correctness, style, maintainability, etc., and then use human review for good design and sanity checking. The bots can do things like hold all the C++ correctness rules in their context and apply them sometimes better than even a human expert.

The bots can also write Rust instead of C++, doing away with the arcane nonsense accumulated by that legacy language. SCNR.

Bot-assisted Rust could be amazing; there's some ports already happening which wouldn't have otherwise. Maybe Rewrite-it-in-Rust can actually be a real thing and not just a meme. But it does put a big burden on implementors to understand what they're generating, and now it's in an unfamiliar language to boot.

The solution is to merge more of his PRs on the condition that he takes at least partial responsibility for any resulting problems.

That's not how anything works. Even if he says he's going to take responsibility, when the customer call comes in at midnight you're going to be the one fixing his problems.

The reviewer gets to merge the PR so their name appears on all the great new features and they are credited for them. That would end his unfair behaviour of dumping effort onto other people.

OR - he gets a review for every review he does.

You're just parroting the GP.

Is that the hill you want to Dye on?

https://daringfireball.net/2025/12/bad_dye_job

> There is nothing to secure, because there is no SQL query.

Yet.

I thought the whole value proposition of this thing was supposed to be that the interface is "natural" human language. If interact with it using a structured and specified language... then what are we doing exactly? Is this AI? Maybe we just re-invented GraphQL or something?

Does that meaningfully restrict which foods / ingredients you can get?

In terms of fresh meat and vegetables, it's pretty much all grown/produced in Australia. Anything canned / dried is often imported though. Things like rice or coffee beans you technically can buy Australian grown but you'd have to go out of your way to find it.

No. Australia produces vast variety of food everything you could want to eat aside from more exotic stuff.

My kids heard it in Narragansett.

> Why even reduce an easy to exploit attack surface when there could be holes elsewhere?! Because, you know, it makes things much more secure even if imperfect.

I'm still trying to calibrate my take on this view.

If attacks are randomly chosen from the set of all potential vulnerabilities, without the attacker knowing which ones had been patched, then that logic clearly makes sense.

But in an adversarial situation where the attacker can guess which vulnerabilities you still have unpatched, or can try many different attack vectors, then having already patched some other vulnerabilities doesn't matter so much.

I guess reality is more complicated though.

I share your worries.

Unfortunately, this may be akin to the situation of "The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent."

I am curious of that allows the new President, while in office, to assassinate the previous one and insta-pardon himself.

It's amazing how much of America's political stability might rest not on the law, but rather on the self-restraint of each cohort's leadership.

Let's not forget the complacency of this Congress. POTUS could not get away with this nonsense if Congress would do its job. The right has been working their way to this perfect scenario for decades with gerrymandering at the state level, Congress refusing to accept a SCOTUS nominee from POTUS holding out that the next POTUS would be their guy, and all of the other nonsense that has happened to get us to this spot.

Algernon for Flowers.

> I spent ages trying to work out what "who knew more about furniture than most" meant, thinking it would be expanded upon or referenced later.

Assuming it was an intentional, it could be a reference to one particularly violent piece of furniture. (I forget what kind exactly, it's been a while.)

Given it comes immediately after the bit about philosophers comparing memories to furniture, I simply assumed that was meant to be read as “Pratchett, who knew more about the goings on inside people’s heads than most”.

I'm not sure I'd call it furniture, but are you maybe referring to the luggage?

It's furniture when standing, and luggage when walking.