Sharing for anyone else not familiar with AT Protocol:
The AT Protocol is an open, decentralized network for building social applications.
Account portability and Scalability through activity aggregation
Bluesky uses AT Protocol. The connected network/platform is called the Atmosphere.
Bluesky Social has pledged to transfer the protocol's development to a standards body. - Wikipedia
I didn't see any mention of other software/platforms using AT protocol on the protocol website or Wikipedia.
I am very proficient in my primary language, C#.
Writing more context out feels like boasting, so I think I will skip that and go to a summation/conclusion directly.
Knowledge and expertise comes from more than the language. Which you hinted at. The language is only our interface. How is the language represented, how will it transform the code, how will it be run. There's a lot of depth in there - much more than there is in the language itself.
I learned a lot, through my own studies and reading, studying, projects, and experience. I'm a strong systematic thinker. It all helps me in interpreting and thinking about wide- and depth- context and concerns. I also think my strengths come at the cost of other things, at least in my particular case.
You're not alone. Most developers do not have the depth or wide knowledge. And most [consequently] struggle to or are oblivious to many concerns and opportunities, and to intuitively or quickly understand and follow such information.
Which does not necessarily mean they're not productive or useful.
When you draw a parallel to social charity both are largely volunteer based and underfunded. And both have direct and indirect gains for society.
Physical charity often serves basic needs. I'm not sure selecting qualifying quality open source projects is as easy. Need and gain assessments are a lot less clear.
If it's about public funding distribution, I would like to see some FOSS funding too, but not at the cost of or equal or more than social projects.
How many FOSS projects actually benefit "millions and billions of people"? That kind of impact feels like it's few and far between.
It’s been shown that AI isn’t at a level where using it for anything isn’t beneficial, in fact it’s the contrary.
Maybe you're thinking of something more specific than me, but I don't think that's the case. What is being called AI is a broad field.
I think what Opus was able to implement for high packet-loss voice transmission is exceptional.
I also find Visual Studio in-line-inline-completions to be very useful.
That's far from the typical Chatbots and whatnot though. Which often suck.
At work, we recently talked about AI. One use case mentioned (by an AI consulting firm, not us or actually suggested for us) was meeting summaries and extracting TODOs from them.
My stance is that AI could be useful for summaries about topics so you can see what topics were being talked about. But I would never trust it with extracting the or all significant points, TODOs, or agreements. You still need humans to do that, and have explicit agreement and confirmation of the list in or after the meeting.
It can also help to transcribe meetings. It could even translate them. Those things can be useful. But summarization should never be considered factual extraction of the significant points. Especially in a business context, or anything else where you actually care about being able to trust information.
I wouldn't [fully] trust it with transforming facts either. It can work where you can spot inaccuracies (long text, lots of context), or where you don't care about them.
Natural language instructions to machine instructions? I'd certainly be careful with that, and want to both contextualize and test-confirm it works well enough for the use case and context.
In my Firefox I get a NS_BINDING_ABORTED error on the Google Fonts font request.
And they didn't specify a font fallback, only their external web font. It would have worked if they had added monospace as a fallback.
In highlighting the need to understand the requirements before development begins, the research charts a path between Agile purists and Waterfall advocates. ®
Random trademark symbol. What's the registered trademark here? The dot? "advocates"?
I would learn on the project, and use the official documentation to look up what it is, how it works, and how to solve what you want to do.
Why is Firefox not listed?
Your description of JIT-learning sounded more like learn-only-on-the-job than JIT.
When you say "should have learned more upfront" I don't see how that would necessarily have to be outside or within the job. Where you learn it is open and arbitrary. For me, it's a question of what's reasonably necessary or efficient, does it make sense to explore more or prototype at work? Outside of that, I would have to have a personal interest in it to explore it in my private time just in time.
Usually, I learn upfront unspecific to concrete work. And that experience and knowledge come in handy at work.
When I'm on the job I work on and learn what is necessary to the degree it makes sense. I prefer to fully understand, but sometimes that's not possible or reasonably, acceptably efficient. Then you can weigh risk vs cost and prospect. There's no way around weighing that each time and individually. Development, in/as general, is too varied to have one arbitrary supposed weighing to follow.
If budgeting donations is difficult, maybe donating time is more viable?
Employees are already paid for. Less people involved to approve too.
If you have the autonomy you may even be able to to without explicit approval.
It would certainly be an issue if you didn't have one