> Tools are supposed to be designed around humans

This is a common thing to say, but when during the development of human civilization has this actually been the case? Is agriculture designed around humans more than hunting/gathering? Is industrialized work more designed around humans than agrarian society?

I don't mean to sound pessimistic or technocratic; quite the contrary. But I think we shouldn't project our desire for equanimity onto romantized versions of civilization.

▲

specialist 3 days ago | parent [-]

We shape the tools that in turn shape us.

▲

sph 2 days ago | parent [-]

True; I have seen the agentic workflow and I would rather not be shaped by it.

It looks like absolute hell of constant distraction making it impossible to reach a state of flow.

	▲	specialist 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		For me, autocomplete is an unbearable distraction. I never took to pair programming either. I've bounced off Claude Code (et al) multiple times. But very recently I've had some successes. With some bulk bug fixes, it felt the same as scripting data quality fix ups. With proof of concepts in mind, tried 3 very different ideas. Two quickly flamed out, revealing that I needed to chew on those ideas (a lot) more. If we're measuring how to "fail faster", I'd score these as useful efforts. But one has been a very unexpected delight to work on. Almost addictive, like coding feels when you're in the flow. Any way. The current mania for coding harnesses is total insanity. Mario of Pi.dev fame is spot on and far more insightful and articulate than me.