Somethings Supporting Those Umm Technologies

Mr. Krabs from SpongeBob keeping track of exactly how long we've gone without some AI-generated hallucination, bizarre prompt injection, or GitHub Copilot suggesting a security vulnerability as a "best practice." The counter remains stubbornly at zero, much like those workplace "days without an accident" signs that never make it past single digits. Just another Tuesday in the brave new world where we've all become unwitting QA testers for neural networks with confidence issues.

The rare sight of a developer with actual respect for fundamentals! While everyone's chasing the latest JavaScript framework and slapping together AI demos with more dependencies than original code, this little brother is out here building pixel-art RPGs in Java from scratch . That's not just coding—that's craftsmanship. There's something deeply satisfying about watching someone learn programming the hard way instead of becoming another "copy-paste from Stack Overflow" developer who calls themselves a "10x engineer" because they can npm install 47 packages in one command. The future belongs to those who understand what's happening under the hood. I, too, will watch this career with great interest.

Ah yes, the software engineer's journey: from creative problem-solver to glorified prophylactic for AI hallucinations. You spend years mastering algorithms, design patterns, and system architecture, only to end up being the human safety wrapper preventing Claude from confidently telling users that JavaScript was invented by the Romans in 43 AD. The waterfall model reference is chef's kiss though—because just like waterfall, once the AI outputs garbage, there's no going back up that stream. You're stuck downstream doing damage control, validating outputs, and explaining to stakeholders why the AI suggested storing passwords in a public GitHub repo. At least in waterfall you could blame the requirements phase. Now you're just babysitting a very confident statistical parrot.

Remember when ChatGPT dropped and we all felt like gods? Just ask it anything and boom, instant code. It was like discovering fire for the first time. Fast forward to 2026 and now you're juggling Copilot, Gemini, Claude, and probably three other AI assistants you forgot you signed up for. Each one has its own quirks, strengths, and ways of misunderstanding your prompts. You've gone from "wow, AI writes code for me!" to becoming a full-time AI wrangler, managing multiple subscriptions and remembering which assistant is better at what. The joy has been replaced by the exhaustion of choice paralysis and prompt engineering across multiple platforms. Welcome to the future, where you need AI to help you manage your AI tools.

So Michael Burry thinks trade jobs are "AI-proof" and uses Claude to do electrical work around his house. Then he drops the absolute bomb: "I am not so sure." The guy who predicted the 2008 housing crisis is now betting against the "AI won't replace blue-collar jobs" narrative. If an AI chatbot can guide someone through electrical work—a field requiring years of apprenticeship, code knowledge, and the ability to not die from 240V—what's stopping it from replacing actual electricians? The irony is chef's kiss: while using AI to do trade work, he realizes trade work might not be safe from AI. It's like watching someone discover they're standing on the thing they're about to short sell. The "Big Short 2026" format suggests we're heading toward another market collapse, except this time it's the job market getting wrecked by AI. Burry's track record of being catastrophically right about catastrophic things makes this extra unsettling. Time to learn underwater basket weaving—surely AI can't do that... right?