carschno

I think the Peter Principle addresses a good point, but misses a critical one: the hierarchy itself. Obviously, a manager requires different skills than an engineer, so why should a good engineer be a good manager? This holds the other way round: a good manager is not particularly likely to be a good engineer.

Both is fine, these are just different jobs. However, the problem is that the manager is 'above' the engineer in the generally accepted hierarchy. Consequently, engineers are pressured to become managers for the development. As long as this hierarchy exists, the problem will exist.

“What was odd, the source said, was that the money in the account—hundreds of millions of dollars—had come from a bank in Azerbaijan. Most importantly, Kushner appeared to have transferred significant amounts of money from the Dubai account to other individuals, including a warlord, a mercenary, and a one-time hit man,” Cole wrote.

“What was odd, the source said, was that the money in the account—hundreds of millions of dollars—had come from a bank in Azerbaijan. Most importantly, Kushner appeared to have transferred significant amounts of money from the Dubai account to other individuals, including a warlord, a mercenary, and a one-time hit man,” Cole wrote.

Anyone trying to express intelligence in a single dimension has already failed to understand the topic.

Stating the obvious, but you can of course see it as: there are more than enough workers that need the extra money so urgently that they are happy to screw up their health and social life. Whether they really "need" the money is another discussion.

Apologies for being nit-picky, but there is no etymological sense. The output of your LLM has the same etymological root, but a different meaning. In terms of translation, it is therefore plain wrong.

Honestly, I was triggered to correct this comment mostly because it illustrates how we tend to explain away mistakes made by an LLM. It's not about subtle 'connotation', but the meaning is just incorrect. No offense meant to the poster, this is a trap the world has been falling into at scale for the past few years.

Don't _ads in search_ account for 100% of their search revenue? Does Google Search offer any other paid services?

I don't know, and I think there is no easy answer. The point is: the investors don't know how to measure traction either, so they just measure GitHub activity instead, even at the very moment in which it becomes obvious that it does not capture actual traction. The absurdity lies in the statement that the developers still need to gain actual traction while putting additional effort into gaming that metric to satisfy their investors.

> It's especially sensitive for a VC-backed startup that is measured thoroughly by GitHub activity, but we have to pull the trigger:

This sentence also illustrates the absurdity of this investment model. It imposes a trade-off between building good software, and complying with the investor's metrics. They probably call such metrics evidence-based, but this example shows that they arbitrarily capture some numbers to obscure the lack of meaningful measurements.