manager

Attention over time

7-day rolling share of analyzed posts/comments mentioning this entity · 90 daily points ending 2026-10-15

Final complete day: 2026-10-15. Attention was 0.2% — this entity appeared in 6 of 2,852 analyzed posts/comments in the seven days ending that day (7 mentions).

Each point is a seven-day rolling window of complete UTC days; a point is comparable only when at least 100 analyzed posts or comments fall inside it. A day with no analyzed records counts as zero; missing coverage is marked and never shown as zero. The series ends at the latest complete analyzed day — it never extends into the current incomplete day. How attention is measured.

Recent mentions

1. 2026-10-13 16:35 UTCComment

   Some people need to see this. Look, I'm all for improvement. But the age of not reviewing PRs is hot garbage. Automated code generation is fine. But yoloing code you've never seen is never going to be a practice I accept. If reviewing PRs is too much work for someone, then this work isn't for them. If someone is pressuring you to ignore review, stop listening to them or respecting their opinions - they're a liability, even if they're your manager, product owner, business owner, etc. Bottleneck and don't let yourself be whipped for the sake of metrics. Blow the whistle. Go over their head. It's okay. It's important. Take the heat. It's your professional responsibility and integrity on the line. And it's your name and reputation on that stamp at the quality gate. It'll be your name under that bus axle or the incident report when shit hits the fan. You have as much a responsibility to check quality and safety as someone at a chicken processing plant or a saw mill. We all have to work for our bread, but that's no excuse to be boot tread. Stand up for yourself. LGTM "review" is not the way. If the LLM is going too fast for review, then accept being the bottleneck. There's no rule that says you have to crank the knob to 11 and leave the god damn room just because there's a setting for it. It terrifies me that maintainers of libraries and services I use may be doing this. Inb4 "but I need money" and "lul this tryhard." That's the difference between an engineer and a weak link.

2. 2026-10-12 01:40 UTCComment

   In practice it usually means lining up the person whose approval matters before the formal meeting happens. You find out what that engineer or manager is currently on the hook for, lead with how your change makes that easier or avoids a failure they care about, and leave room for them to suggest a small adjustment so it feels partly theirs. Then the review is mostly confirming a decision instead of defending one. The failure case is doing this too visibly; if the room notices you are managing people instead of solving the problem, it backfires fast. Is there a specific decision you have in mind, like a tool choice or an architecture change, or are you trying to read a situation after the fact?

3. 2026-10-09 21:10 UTCComment

   I almost inherited a 750,000 line project of vibe coded a lot by a business user at my company, it quickly got backtracked though once I showed my manager how many lines it was. I don’t think programmers are going away anytime soon 😅. AI is definitely an insane force multiplier though in the hands of someone with programming knowledge.

4. 2026-10-09 14:59 UTCComment

   Because my manager is right there with us making sure we have context, that tickets are prepped and good to go, and even does some himself. As I imagine a lot of managers are doing now

5. 2026-10-09 02:34 UTCComment

   Yeah, ADHD sucks, especially if you have issues at work at times and you disclose it and your manager basically said "oh that's why you are not a genius like X here or cheery like X here as well, do what you can to rid of that." Paraphasing but yeah. ADHD will always suck.