We also switched to Europe it's now 5x cheaper and the servers are 4x more powerful.
I recommend switching to European cloud if only to not have to think twice about getting 3x redundant servers with 32gb ram. Trivial for anything you'd buy yourself but it costs 20 cars on AWS.
I had a peer explain that the PRs created by AI are now too large and difficult to understand. They were concerned that bugs would crop up after merging the code. Their solution, was to use another AI to review the code... However, this did not solve the problem of not knowing what the code does. They had a solution for that as well... ask AI to prepare a quiz and then deliver it to the engineer to check their understanding of the code.
The question was asked - does using AI mean best-practices should no longer be followed? There were some in the conversation who answered, "probably yes".
> Who will check all this?
So yeah, I think the real answer to that is... no one.
Just yesterday one of my junior devs got an 800-line code review from an AI agent. It wasn't all bad, but is this kid literally going to have to read an essay every time he submits code?
Yes it's like "double it and pass it to the next developer".
Even more troublesome is importing libraries. I have no idea which ones are AI generated and they are better and better at hiding their original authors.
The USA has these type of rules. Similar with cars that have to have self-stopping when they almost run into another car (for example on your phone and person in front breaks).
I always think it's strategy to block Chinese manufacturers with super difficult to implement technology being a hard requirement.
Specially the selling face-to-face requirement here.
> Similar with cars that have to have self-stopping when they almost run into another car (for example on your phone and person in front breaks).
The US regulations on Automatic Emergency Braking systems requirements for new cars are actually several years behind many other markets like the EU and Japan.
This isn’t really an American thing and it’s not for blocking Chinese manufacturers. Chinese automakers can make AEBs too.
"It said 707,000 graduates aged 16 to 64 were out of work and claiming one or more benefits in 2024, an increase of more than 200,000 - or 46% - since 2019."
We suddenly have many many github workflows. I made some with AI and other developers also made many. Today I found out we suddenly have api calls test agains the beta deployment if the api. This was made in like a day or so. It's something like 200 api calls. And figuring out how the Github Actions works for this one task before it was not really worth the trouble but now it's click click go!
People are completely overreacting how much regulation there is in Europe here. There is more regulations against monopolies and USA BigTech is always crying about that and spreading propaganda about that. But starting a startup is way cheaper in Europe you won't need funding like in the USA even.
It's pretty funny. Europeans get so angry at US people claiming to have seen "Europe" when they've been in London, Paris and Rome, and yet they (we) do the same thing on lots of other topics.
Then why do you think virtually all of the most successful tech startups are U.S. companies? (Excluding Asia, for the purposes of this discussion.) Is it just Silicon Valley network effects?
Maybe it was like a safe. If people wanted to steel something it would take them a very long time and they would be very easy to stop from ever coming out alive.
I don't know why people use 'new' and 'delete' in all the examples how memory in C++ works because you never normally use them during coding only if you want to make your own container which you might do once to learn about the internals.
C++ by default creates objects by value (opposed to any other language) and when the variable goes out of scope the variable is cleaned up.
'new' you use when you want to make a global raw pointer outside of the normal memory system is how I would see it. You really never use it normally at least I don't.
People use `new` and `delete` when explaining memory in C++ because those are the language primitives for allocating and releasing memory in C++.
That rule of thumb is only a useful rule if you don't care about how memory works and are comfortable with abstractions like RAII. That's fine for lots of real code but dismissing `new` and `delete` on principle is not interesting or productive for any discussion.
I understand C++ has a lot of operators which are variously reserved but not standardized ("asm") largely obsolete but still needed because of perverse C programmers ("goto") still reserved long after their usefulness subsided ("register") or for ideas that are now abandoned ("synchronized") not to mention all its primitive types ("double", "signed", "long", "short", "char8_t") and redundant non-textual operators given ASCII names like ("and_eq", "bitand", "xor")
But it also has dozens, like new and delete which look like features you'd want. So kinda makes sense to at least mention them in this context.
In production, odds are you are relying on allocators or containers others already wrote. You coming in in 2026 may not ever use the keywords directly, but you'll either be using abstractions that handle that for you (be it STL or something internal) or using some custom allocation call referring to memory already allocated.
But yes, I'd say a more general rule is "allocate with caution".
Such article can end up with a 'false balance' bias by introducing and showing a method one should avoid to motivate the solution. What some people learn is "there are two options".
Maybe it works be better to start with "that's how we do it" and only afterwards following up with "and that's why".
He's making it massively more complex than it actually is
{ // this scope is owner
// allocate
auto my_obj = MyObj{};
// this function scope does not have ownership of my_obj, should take (const MyObj& obj) const reference as parameter
do_something(my_obj);
Are you sure? It seems as though ultimately Microsoft's STL for example ends up calling std::allocator's allocate function which uses the new operator.
Ownership problems with pointer/references don't end with allocation.
A codebase can use only std::make_unique() to allocate heap, and still pass around raw pointers to that memory (std::unique_ptr::get()).
The real problem is data model relying on manual lifetime synchronization, e.g. pass raw pointer to my unique_ptr to another thread, because this thread joins that thread before existing and killing the unique_ptr.
I don’t disagree. That’s why I don’t write C++ anymore. It’s a masochistic language and trying to do it in a team environment with people who do understand how to do it properly is a mess let alone adding in people who don’t know.
Well in interviews this is tricky. Sometimes the interviewer wants to see I can new/delete properly, sometimes this tells me "well, if that's the style they are using I better go elsewhere"
If it's done as part of a "here is legacy code, suggest ways to improve it" question one should point it out, though.
Don’t worry. The question was super basic and almost every candidate still failed to mention that you need to delete in the destructor, that copying requires a new allocation or that you also need to define the move constructor. It made me sad about the state of C++ developers and thankful that Rust makes such mistakes impossible.
many schools (like mine) don't teach unique pointers in the pure "programming" class sequence, but offer a primer in advanced classes where c++ happens to be used, with the intent to teach manual memory management for a clearer transition to e.g. upper-levels which use c.
reply