"shipped" was a pretty common term before AI though. It does show as 17x more common on github in this dataset but it was used a lot more in product management than in PRs previously.
To be clear, I am referring to software and shipping as a developer who has finished, more or less, their app. Not that I am against its use, I just never really heard that word being used before, and now I hear it all the time. Thus, what the real issue I have with it is, is because my brain has associated its use with a torrent of crap, ie. AI slop. I hear the word used, and I already have bad feeling about it. And dialed in even further, my issue is not with AI just because, it's simply the association I have of this technology taking something that many of us spent real blood, sweat, and tears earning the right to represent, to it now being automated, and represented (badly) by novices with no respect for the spirit of it all. But, this is not a new or unique sentiment nor are my grievances with it. All hope is not lost, though. I know I need to adapt, and I know that like the world, I need to change too. But no one ever said I have to like it :-)
Context aside, I still gotta stand by the 17x indicator or see something that deflates that finding, and if I do see that, I guess all of the results are in question then? Based on the specific use case mentioned at the beginning there, coupled with personal experience (I totally could just be more sheltered than I give myself credit for), and the 17x, I gotta disagree with you guys and say that the finding of the link above is accurate in my experience being the *
imo its a change in definition. Previously to "ship" was a one-time thing that you did for big, highly verified and checked stuff. Physically shipping your software to your user tends to be done after its a product.
Nobody was "shipping" a PR, or a jira ticket previously
I can get on board with this...so you are suggesting the usage isn't new, but the frequency changed can be attributed to the scope change, so the frequency is associated with all of the new cases that the new scope encompasses, which in hind sight I'm surprised that didn't occur to me already, it's pretty obvious. I'm probably a bit hampered by the preexisting dislike for the aforementioned association though. Is there a reliable way to determine the difference in frequency versus the difference in usage, or is the frequency multiplier already based on usage? Or maybe I am trying to ask if there is any way to get a sense of what the 17x is in relation to, ie. what is it 17x more than...if someone said the word "example" was used 17x more than it was six weeks ago, I would know that baseline by experience, but for something like "shipped" it's not as straight forward.
