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

When David Fincher's The Social Network premiered in 2010, many people still thought of Mark Zuckerberg as a genius who had revolutionized the world by creating Facebook. Writer Aaron Sorkin's script was critical of Zuckerberg's character and his ruthless approach to doing business, but it also helped mythologize the co-founder at a time when the general public was much more enchanted by Silicon Valley. When Zuckerberg said in 2014 that he'd been hurt by the film's depiction of him, Fincher said he was "sorry that it did" and admitted that he "wouldn't want a movie made about the things I did when I was 19 years old," either. Fincher's apolo …

Read the full story at The Verge.

While deep in the recording process for The Downward Spiral, Trent Reznor lent some of his production talents to old friend Kevin McMahon, from the new wave band Lucky Pierre (which Reznor was briefly a member of). While Reznor is only credited as the producer on four tracks off Prick's self-titled debut record, his fingerprints are all over it. But McMahon also can't suppress his inner theater kid, which also gives the songs the sort of glammy flamboyance found on T. Rex records. Prick embraces the inherent theatricality of goth in a way that Nine Inch Nails never did.

Opener "Communiqué" is a fuzzy blast of simple punk riffs with electro …

Read the full story at The Verge.

The podracing scene in The Phantom Menace is one of my favorite movie sequences ever. It's just so dang cool: The futuristic racers tear over treacherous Tatooine terrain while various Star Wars aliens bark at each other in incomprehensible sci-fi languages. Eventually a young Anakin Skywalker proves his mettle by clawing his way from the back of the pack to win the race, which left an impression on me when I first saw it at 10 years old. I always wished I could pilot a podracer myself. Over the past several days, I've been able to live out that dream thanks to Star Wars: Galactic Racer, which takes everything from that brilliant scene and p …

Read the full story at The Verge.

There are few blockbuster games that are as confident as Gears of War: E-Day. A prequel to one of Xbox's most transformative titles, E-Day knows exactly what it wants to be: a brutal, tense, and self-aware action game, one that is stronger because it doesn't deviate from that premise. Twenty years since the original Gears of War, there's still nothing like its particular brand of up-close cover shooter gameplay, and E-Day shows that it still hits hard two decades later. As Xbox moves into a messy new era focused on its biggest franchises, E-Day could be an early glimpse at the future of the platform. But it's also launching during one of the …

Read the full story at The Verge.

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