_fw

Because Pangram is snake oil.

Then give devs slack or an equivalent alternative? The point the author making is that forcing devs into Teams, because the org uses it, is a red flag. And they’re right.

It’s an indicator that developer experience pales in comparison to bean-counting, and that is an indicator that the business focuses on ROI in the wrong areas.

I’m sure there are finance teams that love it. I work in marketing and I sure as hell don’t, after it using it in two different full-time roles.

It’s as much as a red flag for me as the author.

Afaik flagging acts like a super-downvote as far as the algorithm is concerned

That’s different to the 2014 Model S that he said he could do it a decade ago

Rockets, cool.

Teslas can’t drive themselves, you can’t lease out your Model 3 as an autonomous taxi. The Cybertruck isn’t bulletproof, doesn’t have a 500mi range and it didn’t launch for under $40k. You can’t do a 90-second battery swap on any Tesla.

Yes, we all saw what looked like a car do a flip. But judge Tesla on their actions, not dumbass statements Elon makes on a stage.

It’s impossible for this car to beat the vaporware allegations. If you see the car that “flies” in the video… it’s a prototype on a ladder frame chassis with no driver. It’s not even a tech demo, it’s a publicity stunt.

None of these ‘groundbreaking’ features will make it to market, mark my words.

And is anybody actually able to suffer through the entire presentation? My entire body writhed with cringe when I had to listen to Musk make up a VMAX target of ‘Mach 0.5’.

Mate Rimac made a good point when the Tesla Roadster’s rocket boosters were announced. There are MAJOR major downsides, including massive added equipment weight (tanks, compressors, valves, and nozzles) that acts as dead weight immediately after the air/gas is expended in 2 to 3 seconds, which completely overloads tires and chassis dynamics.

This dork is trying to impress people with attention-grabbing impossibilities once again. The Cybertruck is totally different to the concept he unveiled. It sucks and this will too.

You sell the most shovels right before the gold rush ends.

I agree with this deeply. I’d even go as far to say I don’t think it’s just software this is applicable too, it’s perhaps any body of collaborative, thoughtful and developed work

That’s a really good point! But I am always surprised by how often people will avoid putting their prototypes out there and let the market shape their product.

Rapid prototyping is an amazing opportunity afforded to us by AI. But some people use that potential to spend even longer on a more developed prototype that they are too attached to to get feedback on!

I am not sure it IS impossible to make anything good fast. Look at how many incredible songs have been made in a single afternoon, or fantastic ideas for a simple product came to somebody in an instant.

Your comment made me think two things:

• Sometimes constraints make things better, and ‘speed’ can occasionally make you prioritise the things that actually matter so you deliver stuff that counts

• Sometimes, thinking longer about something doesn’t get you closer to the correct answer. You can rearrange and refactor and rewrite and redesign, but you won’t always get something objectively better than what you originally came up with. It’s still your thoughts, your brain and your ways of working that shape the output (and they haven’t changed).

Investing more time to make something better should be a conscious decision. Perhaps it’s one people decide against for the wrong reasons.

But sometimes things need something other than time and effort spent to make them better.

As somebody responsible for the acquisition of users and growth of a company in terms of customer and revenue, this is a VERY salient point:

> “… we could not have accelerated Zotero’s conception, because we did not know exactly what we wanted, and so could not have written coherent prompts for an LLM.”

A surprising proportion of software products, maybe even businesses today, are solutions in search of a problem.

Sometimes that’s okay, but only sometimes. And being a solution in search of a problem requires you to get everything /else/ pretty much perfect if you want to succeed.

The fact Zotero paid attention to what people wanted, and gave it to them, and were market oriented, is demonstrably a big part of their success.

It is MUCH easier to make something people want, than to make them want something you made.

I can confirm I’ve seen this with Deepseek V4.1, I imagine it’s with other models too.

I’m not everyone else but I am SOMEBODY else and you’re absolutely right. I was paying for Claude since they first offered subscriptions, right up until this summer.

I respect Anthropic (and OpenAI to a lesser extent) but I’m not going to play these games.