标签：#car

How GitHub's culture and benefits helped me be the best version of myself. The post Transitioning as a hubber appeared first on The GitHub Blog .

I'm a professional developer, and AI has significantly increased my output—I'd say by maybe 30 or 40 percent. GitHub Copilot has significantly changed the way I work with code. However, I take pride in producing high-quality code quickly, which is why my rates are high. Using AI helps me increase my output while maintaining that level of quality. My take on AI is that it is not going to replace humans anytime soon. It is, however, putting significant pressure on the economy. Previously, setting up a functional, decent-quality project without much complexity took time—at least weeks. Now, such tasks are incredibly fast and easy; anyone can set them up in a few minutes using AI, even without any coding knowledge. Success in most fields, however, is not just a measure of how fast you can build; it's also about how well you can execute. Current AI can offer advice, but it still cannot execute for you. Market success requires sensitivity, context, and adaptability. AI can help significantly if you know how to ask the right questions. But the economy is made of people, not AI (yet). To earn money, someone must give you money because they value what you offer. The arrival of LLMs hasn't changed this. I feel the pressure. The corporation I work for is pushing for AI adoption, and the initial drawbacks and realizations are already becoming apparent. First point: Customers, at best, don't care about your AI. They don't want it. Second point: AI succeeds at making developers more productive but fails with higher complexity—though not for the reason people usually think. With the right prompt, GPT-5.4 can create fairly complex solutions, even more complex than many corporate business processes. The real reason is that, at a certain level, complexity lies not in the total amount of information in the system, but in how the human aspect of the business translates when you try to formalize higher-level context. This is something most developers don't see (or care about). For examp

I am going to start with a number most people will not say out loud. 1,200 applications. That is how many jobs I applied to over 3 to 4 months trying to switch from a service-based company to a product-based one. I had spreadsheets, saved searches, and browser tabs I kept telling myself I would close tomorrow. Some nights I was applying at 11pm just to hit my self-imposed daily quota. Out of 1,200, I got around 10 interview calls. Out of 10, I got 4 offers. The applications got me in the room. What happened inside the room is what this post is actually about. The One Thing That Followed Me Into Every Interview At my previous company I worked on a lot of things, but one project came up in literally every single interview. We had a Python module that parsed ASAM MDF files. Binary log files from vehicles and sensors, often gigabytes in size. The parser was painfully slow. Around 8 minutes to load a single file. The kind of slow where you start it, go get lunch, and hope it is done when you come back. I rewrote it in Rust. Load time dropped from 8 minutes to 12 seconds. 40x improvement on GB-scale files. Every interviewer stopped me the moment I mentioned it. The questions were real engineering questions, not generic resume stuff. "Why Rust over Go or C++?" "How did you profile the bottleneck first?" "What was your testing strategy when rewriting something this critical?" "What would you do differently now?" I would spend 20 to 30 minutes just on this one project. Not because they were grilling me. Because it was a genuine conversation between two people who cared about the problem. Here is why it worked: I had lived with it. I hit walls in the rewrite that took days to figure out. The context, the wrong turns, the eventual solution were all stored in my head. When a follow-up question came, the answer was just there. You cannot fake that. A first follow-up question exposes a tutorial project immediately. Real work under real constraints creates a depth that no amount o

I started my career in the late 2010s, and I have had a front-row seat to the growth of the industry that has given me everything: software engineering. Looking back over the last decade, I have mixed feelings about some of the calls I made. And I am seeing the same patterns play out again now. So for engineers who are confused about where this is headed and how to navigate it, here is how I think about it. Generalist SWEs were a product of cheap money The late 2010s, I saw an huge amount of startup funding, globally. Flipkart, Snapdeal, Jugnoo, and hundreds of others were scaling hard and one hiring pattern I saw was that: everyone wanted generalist software engineers. People who could easily get upto speed across the stack.- backend, frontend, infra, deployment and simply ship. Building software was expensive. Automation was still low. Kubernetes had just gone mainstream. Shipping still meant a surprising amount of manual work: SSH-ing into servers, copying artifacts around, running mvn builds by hand, debugging deployments straight in production, duct-taping infrastructure that today you would never touch. Companies fought over engineers who maximized feature throughput. Breadth was a premium, because every extra engineer increased the rate at which software got built. It helped because the money was also free and VCs rewarded growth over efficiency, and hiring software engineers in bulk was the easiest way to spend it. Pull up a resume from an engineer who started around that time and you will usually see the same shape: a long list of technologies and frameworks, broad and adaptable, but rarely deep in any one thing. There was no incentive to go deep. LLMs Changed The Dynamics LLMs did not kill software engineering. It compressed the cost of implementation. The work that got hit first was the work that was already standardized: CRUD apps; API integration and glue code; Framework-heavy backend work; Frontend scaffolding; Standard architectural patterns. What use

Polestar won't be allowed to sell its electric vehicles model year 2027 and beyond in the US after the federal government denied the company's request for authorization under a new rule banning vehicles with software from China. In a press release, the company says the decision to retreat from the US follows a recent decision […]

Did Full Self-Driving (Supervised), Tesla’s driver assistance feature, play a role in a woman’s death?

Slate Auto is a new startup that emerged out of a secretive project called “Re:Car” within Re:Build Manufacturing, a domestic manufacturing project backed by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos. The company’s first electric vehicle is a barebones electric pickup that’s roughly a third of the size of your typical gas-powered truck. And the proposal is pretty […]

We talk a lot about what AI can build. Code generation. Faster prototypes. Automated debugging. One-shot apps. Entire products created in hours. And yes, AI is powerful. But there is a quieter cost we are not talking about enough: AI hype is starting to weaken the motivation to learn core engineering deeply. That should worry us. 1. The "Why Bother?" Mindset When the dominant narrative says AI can generate code instantly, many engineers start asking: Why should I spend months mastering frameworks, architecture, databases, networking, or system design? At first, that sounds practical. If a tool can help, why not use it? But there is a difference between using AI to move faster and using AI to avoid understanding. Core engineering is not just about writing code. It is about knowing why something works, where it breaks, how it scales, and how to fix it when the generated answer is wrong. If we skip that learning, we create engineers who can prompt systems but cannot reason deeply about systems. That is a dangerous tradeoff. 2. The Funding and Praise Monopoly Right now, AI gets most of the attention. Budgets move toward AI. Leadership praises AI initiatives. Teams are pushed to add AI features even when the fundamentals are still weak. Meanwhile, excellent core engineering often goes unnoticed. The people improving reliability, performance, developer experience, infrastructure, security, and maintainability are still doing high-impact work. But in many places, that work is being treated as less exciting simply because it is not branded as AI. This creates pressure. Engineers feel they must pivot to AI, not always out of interest, but out of fear. Fear of being left behind. Fear of being replaced. Fear that their existing expertise is no longer valued. That is not innovation. That is anxiety disguised as progress. 3. The "AI-First" Discount There is another subtle problem. When someone builds something impressive today, the reaction is often: AI probably generated that.

Unlike with Volvo, there will be no authorization for Polestar to sell its cars here.

To celebrate its new status as No. 1 in JD Power's initial quality ranking among mainstream automakers, Ford is opening up about the challenges it has faced in recent years, especially around its reliance on automated systems in production and design. It turns out that those automated systems were not as robust as previously assumed, […]

It has 205 miles of bare-bones range.

Brands Hatch, COTA, and Zandvoort will all hold an e-Prix in 2027.

Tesla, accused of failing to fix design flaws, blames driver pressing accelerator.

Zoox, the autonomous vehicle company owned by Amazon, unveiled a new look for its boxy, bidirectional robotaxi, calling it the "next evolution" of the vehicle intended for mass production. The company is currently operating a free robotaxi service in San Francisco, Las Vegas, Austin, and Miami while it waits for the federal government to approve […]

From a bare-bones pickup to a loaded, wrapped SUV, here's what some Slates will cost.

Launching with better specs than expected, the no-frills Bezos-backed electric pickup looks set to take on Ford’s Maverick—and be an EV truck you can afford and fix yourself.

We now know the price of Slate Auto's affordable American-made electric truck, almost a year after the company warned it wouldn't hit its initial "under $20,000" target price. The no-frills pickup starts at $24,950 - matching the revised mid-$20,000 price range it promised last year, after the Trump administration announced it was putting an end […]

With its new pickup, Slate Auto is making a simple bet: price matters more than almost anything else. The company announced today that the American-made electric truck will start at $24,950, placing it squarely in the mid-$20,000 price range it had originally promised and making it the least expensive pickup truck and EV available today. […]

Complete preparation breeds complacency. What is seen every day no longer raises suspicion. The...

I applied to a YC W25 startup the normal way. Filled out the form, wrote a decent cover letter, hit submit. Silence. While waiting, I found their open-source repo on GitHub. Read through the codebase out of genuine curiosity I wanted to understand what they were actually building. Found a bug. Fixed it. Opened a PR. It got merged in 2 days. They still hadn't replied to my application. Here's what that taught me about job hunting in 2025: A cover letter tells someone what you claim you can do. A merged PR shows them. One of those gets read. The other gets filed under "maybe later" -which is just "no" with extra steps. I'm not saying cold applications are dead. I'm saying they're the last resort, not the first move. If a company has a public repo, you have a backdoor that most applicants don't even think to try. Read the code deep and find something small but real. Fix it and Open a PR. Now you're not a stranger in their inbox you're someone who already ships for them. The reply came eventually, by the way. But by then, the maintainers already knew my GitHub handle. That matters more than you think. Have you ever landed something through a contribution instead of an application? Drop it in the comments curious how many people have done this.