Anyone who has even tangentially associated with computer programming knows that modern AI coding assistants and agents can be incredibly efficient at generating huge amounts of functional code. But coders making use of those tools also know better than to trust the accuracy of that code, meaning substantial effort needs to be spent reviewing any AI-generated output.

A recent study of actual coding practices across hundreds of firms finds that human code review forms a significant "bottleneck" for the overall efficiency of AI coding tools, resulting in "little evidence that firms increase software output or reduce employment" by using them. Any efficiency increased during the actual coding phase, the study authors find, is "absorbed by downstream constraints in the production process"; as "the code review process significantly increases in length, pull requests are more likely to require revisions, and reviewers leave more comments."

Cut once, measure twice

To come to these conclusions, Harvard University researchers Fiona Chen and James Stratton made use of aggregated analytics data from Jellyfish, which measures the granular output of engineering teams. That data encompasses 300 million individual "work events" (e.g., commits and pull requests) and issue management software data across more than 700,000 employees at over 700 relevant software development firms from 2021 through March of 2026.

Read full article

Comments

Ferrari’s two-seat sports cars might be the brand’s identity, but the Italian automaker has always catered to customers who want to bring more than one passenger along for the ride. It started building cars with back seats in the 1960s with the 250 GT 2+2; as the name suggests, the second row was more for occasional use, something that was true all the way through to the 612 in the early 2000s. Ferrari followed with its first true four-seater, the all-wheel drive FF, which adopted "Breadvan" styling. Its first hatchback was still a three-door, though, and slightly more practical for carrying cargo rather than humans in the rear. That was true for the GTC4 that followed, too. But with the Purosangue, the rear passengers have been given something of an upgrade.

For one thing, there is an extra pair of doors, rear-hinged ones that provide direct access to the pair of rear bucket seats. There’s still a rear hatch, so this is technically a five-door. But there’s an immovable firewall between the cargo area and the passenger cabin, and the rear seats do not fold flat. So unlike the 21st century breadvans we have previously reviewed, a Costco run in the Purosangue might be possible, but you’re probably going to want a roof rack if you plan to go skiing, cycling, or anything else that requires bulky equipment. It’s also probably accurate that Ferrari says the Purosangue is not an SUV but an FUV—a Ferrari Utility Vehicle.

Underneath that long hood lives a 6.5 L naturally aspirated V12, but mounted back in the chassis such that this is technically a front-mid engined layout. That contributes to the 49:51 front-to-rear weight ratio, as does the use of a transaxle gearbox for the rear wheels (an eight-speed, dual-clutch box); a separate power transfer unit at the front of the engine drives the front wheels, for this is an all-wheel drive Ferrari. But make no mistake, it’s a substantial one, too, befitting that massive 715 hp (533 kW), 528 lb-ft (716 Nm) engine: 195.8 inches (4,973 mm) long, 79.8 inches (2,028 mm) wide, 62.6 inches (1,589 mm) tall, with a 118.1-inch (3,018 mm) wheelbase and a 4,784 lbs (2,170 kg) curb weight.

Read full article

Comments