dabedee

What a strange way to put it. Market forces are a good thing in a market economy. Only someone who secretly wants or hopes for monopolies would you say something to the contrary (a VC).

Yes. Which is why I don't really understand how any of it needs inventing. I'd rather read about how to find out what those teams actually need; and also how to tell when the answer is to build nothing new at all.

I am shocked. Shocked, I tell you. Who could have suspected this?

> Platform teams are engineering-led rather than product-led. There is almost never a product manager handing you a roadmap, no revenue line to follow, and no market to lose.

It's precisely because of this framing and mentality that platform teams don't actually serve people well and are usually highly dysfunctional towers of people inventing work.

The fix for having no market is to act like the teams you serve could leave. This whole article lists signals, and none of them is that. Being captive does not mean the users or internal teams don't have other options and don't notice. Being product-led means caring about your users. A platform teams should be product-led, not engineering-led in that very narrow meaning. Otherwise you invent work as this article so wonderfully exposes.

The technology is an agent you name. You give it a face. Maybe tune the personality. And, it only gets useful as you grant it more and more access to your accounts.

The technology is produced by a public company. And, in this case, the company is useful context for this story since it has just recently agreed to pay about $18 billion to resolve a multistate lawsuit claiming it intentionally designed addictive platforms that harmed young people's mental health.

You cannot detach the technology from the company. It's definitely not a neutral artifact.

I agree with the sentiment of the post, and Github deserves every bit of it. Tried codeberg (which uses forgejo) and I am very happy with it personally.

Sal could not get to his cousin's house every afternoon to do math with her, so he recorded the sessions. She said she preferred the recordings, because she could rewind them and because he wasn't sitting there watching her not get it. He put them on the internet. Then he spent about fifteen years building an exercise engine, a "mastery" model, and a teacher dashboard around them, and told everyone who would listen that the point was to move the lecture out of the classroom so the classroom could be used for something better.

And the essay's premise is: this man wants your child to watch a video.

I just saw it from the lake shore and it was beautiful.

How many of those automated fixes were reverted? How many introduced a new bug? What's the false positive rate on the finding agents? The post has counts for everything that went right and nothing for what could go wrong.

I think this is pragmatic and useful advice. Often it also helps you work through what you think by writing it down. Left this comment as a trace.

Great! Just deleted my account.

Soul-crushing work for a soul-crushing company. Hard to feel much sympathy.

You're asking people to trust you and hand their codebase/IP to your tool while showing them exactly how you treat other people's code/licenses by "deciding" to not carry forward the GPL license.

This is coming from a cofounder at github, someone who probably knows precisely what the GPL is for. Whatever the legal merits, building on a GPL3 project's complete test suite and relicensing under MIT is not acting in good faith toward the original authors. I really find it disgusting and it makes me want to avoid gitbutler entirely.

Fair enough. I won't debate preferences or how you choose to spend your time. I think one of the merits of his articles is that he surveys and gathers sources that others can engage with. Even if we admit he is biased, that exercise (his writing) alone is valuable because one can contradict or reassess his claims.