Not proof, per se, but the term to look up is "inbound marketing".
HubSpot was very big on pushing companies to publish lots of content like blog posts and then having calls to action for people to submit their info in exchange for a whitepaper download or similar. Predictably if your main goal is to consistently publish blog posts and whitepapers to generate leads, and you don't have a strong culture of quality and good writing, it's going to lead to lots of slop (even before you could automate writing it with AI).
That being said, I'm not sure how much to blame HubSpot vs. this just generally having been a marketing approach/idea that was "in the air" while it sort of worked (for some definition of "worked"). I sort of remember a handful of companies at the time doing pretty good blog/content marketing by writing useful and thoughtful stuff, and then lots of companies going „got it, make blog and profit!“. But possible that the HubSpot push accelerated that a lot — I don‘t feel like I have a good intuition about that part.
Inbound marketing is pretty explicitly about creating high quality content that builds a business's credibility, making prospects more likely to want to engage and buy from said business. Creating slop 'top 10' lists is kind of the opposite, pushing customers away. It's a bit of a stretch, therefore to blame HubSpot for garbage content on the internet - since doing this is the opposite of what they advocated. Grifters are always going to be around looking to make a quick buck with the least amount of effort possible.
> Inbound marketing is pretty explicitly about creating high quality content that builds a business's credibility, making prospects more likely to want to engage and buy from said business
Well, yeah, I agree and would probably pursue it like this if I was running a business. However I get the impression that is not what happened at many places that adopted the approach, including one I've previously worked for.
The first thing I always do is define log. It's bonkers to use console.log() for js. a simple window.log=console.log.
Secondly, in your example, no need to label the names. This is almost always understood by context. So, pretty manageable. e.g. in JS:
log(`${longvarname}, ${secondvarname}`)
This is something that does not require a debugger perse. this is something that can be implemented by a "smart" log. beside the log entry there might be a button to see the trace + state at those points. could even allow log() to have an option for this.
1. stop the program
2. edit it to add the new log
3. rebuild the program
4. run it
5. get the program to the same state to trigger the log
3. can take quite a while on some projects, and 5. can take quite a while too for long-running programs.
And then you see the result of what you printed, figure out you need something else as well, and repeat. Instead you can just trigger a breakpoint and inspect the entire program's state.
For 3, printf debugging is often faster for me because it only requires an incremental rebuild. Whereas with gdb, it is very likely that the release build doesn't show me what I want to see, so I need to do a full debug build from scratch which takes much longer, and sometimes no longer replicates the bug.
That hints that you might be doing one of three things wrong. Either:
* You're using to doing things the Windows way, where debug and release are completely different profiles rather than orthogonal flags. Or,
* You're compiling using Clang, which gives up and limits debuggability to simple backtraces when optimization is on. Or,
* Your project is hopelessly bloated and linking with debuginfo is slow, but you haven't figured out external debuginfo.
With GCC, `-g -O2` is a reasonable thing to use for all builds and provides a pretty good debugging experience with only minor competence required to find equivalences for any <optimized out>s.
Some really funny gems, and actually very true! This whole thing is incredibly humorous. And surprisingly, very pleasant to learn from. Please let me know the prompt.
Quote1:
"useEffect is React's answer to the question, "How do we do side effects in functional components?" The answer, apparently, is "Confusingly, with lots of bugs, and in a way that makes developers question their sanity."...If React hooks were a family, useEffect would be the troubled teenager who means well but keeps setting the house on fire."
Quote2:
"ComponentDidMount's Evil Twin: In the before times, we had lifecycle methods that made sense...Clear, explicit, predictable. React looked at this and said, "What if we combined all of these into one confusing function called useEffect?""
Quote3:
"The Dependency Array of Doom: The second argument to useEffect is an array that determines when the effect runs. Sounds simple. It's not."
Quote4:
"Cleanup Functions: Forgetting Them Since 2019: useEffect can return a cleanup function. You'll forget to add it. Every. Single. Time."
Quote5:
"The Infinite Loop Trap: Want to crash a browser? useEffect makes it easy!"
This makes me really want to know what would happen if you took the entirety of Dan Abramov's github comment history and transposed it to the style of Why's https://poignant.guide/ .
Thanks! But I didn't see any hints to the AI about being sarcastic or humorous. Was the initial prompt the only prompt, or were there other prompts? What about per-chapter prompts? Or did the AI pump out the chapter names as well?
I just scrolled way, way back. Found the original Claude Code prompt: ```This folder exists to write a book. You're the author, and I'm guiding you in tech topics to write about. This book is called Reactive,
and it has a unique twist: it is a book that teaches React to people who hate react, the idea of react, how react looks and behaves and
all the downsides. Be wistful for alternatives but contrast the way things are done. Somebody who reads the book should be amused,
entertained, and learn react programming. Write the book in markdown, with numbered files and one file per chapter. Make it a full book,
with an index, table of contents, and all the classic sections (Introduction) a book would have.```
I only know this occurrence. Maybe it is a pattern. From what I know, they operate from a hotel in a Chinese city semi-publicly (the locals know). Developers are not supposed to leave the hotel. The reason they are extremely talented can be partly explained by the training they received: years of system programming training with access to all kinds of source code.
Of course I have never seen this with my own eye, but this friend is the original CTO of Deepin Linux so I believe him. I don’t get the military uniform part though, as it scares away potential employers. Maybe this is one of the requirements of the Chinese government.
If they really are operating from within China it wouldn't surprise me that they are required to be in uniform while 'at work'. When countries have status of forces agreements, it usually revolves around the individual being uniformed or not. For an example a US soldier could cross while out of uniform into the GDR anytime they wanted. But when in uniform, they had to use specific locations that were agreed upon by both sides. Otherwise it would have been considered recognition of a foreign government.
Yeah I think the same. I think that’s China saying we are OK for the operation but you need to make yourself clear that you are a NK military person whenever you approach Chinese business.
But really, I wish I could get into such an education. I myself lacks discipline to do so.
reply