I'm not sure how to prove otherwise, but this actually happened to me. I don't understand this kind of comments saying "FAKE" for views or blog-posting. This is something that happened to me, and I can say for sure people were really pushed in this situation to ship faster every time.

It really demotivated me when this happened, I just kept seeing the PR open, but then I saw the changes applied before the PR was merged, which made me very confused. I then had an alert placed on every one of the updates made by Mike to make sure he didn't do this again. People were against "reset reviewers on commit" for "agility".

I think people can be in hard conditions, needing a job, under pressure, burnt out and feel like this is their only way to keep their job. At least that's how it felt with Mike.

At the end, I spent a lot of time sitting down with Mike to explain this kinds of things, but I wasn't effective.

Also, now LLMs empower Mike to make a 1600 line PR daily, and me needing to distinguish between "lazyslopped" PRs or actual PRs.

I mean, there are some exceptions on when 1600 PRs are acceptable (Refactorings, etc) but otherwise agree.

What really bugs me is that today, it is easier than ever to do this (even the LLM can do this!) and people still don't do it.

I ended up overengineering a LangGraph workflow to handle this. It forces the LLM to generate and pass its own tests in a sandbox before I even see the PR. The API costs are significantly higher because of the retry loops, but it filters out the low effort attempts.

Thanks! Fixed.

Right, I think there is always a balance between being strict on code reviews, and just letting people ship stuff. I've also seen the other end of the stick in which a senior employee is blocking an important pr over "spacing".

Your software linting should be automated, and if possible it should be formatted automatically.

It really shouldn't be possible to have arguments in a PR over formatting.

To be honest I'm not a native english speaker, so I might be using words wrong.

You're using the words in a way which has become normal; nobody will mistake your meaning. I'm just observing a shift in the use of language over time which feels strange to me.

Thanks for sharing!

Same experience for me, I still remember at IC1 getting 7k stocks over 5 years as my "stock bonus" for the year. which meant getting 1 or 2 MSFT stock every 4 months :D

Right, but there is even an implicit pact, you get lower-than-market compensation but you get better benefits and long-term stability. At least that's the mental math you did when joining the company and comparing offers between employers.