somebehemoth

> But it's not going to do that. It's literally designed to give the best and most accurate answer that it can.

This is not true. This is not how LLM's work. They have no concept of accuracy or "best".

The inside and outside of Luce is ugly and both depart from traditional Ferrari styling. I don't know why it matters what they are known for.

As a lifelong fan of Ferrari, I find both the interior and exterior hideous.

They did not write the rust code. AI wrote that code. Your response is side stepping the primary issue people have with the rewrite: no human has read and understood all the code AI wrote.

In the real world, Chromebooks are excellent candidates to install Linux. They are highly compatible, low power, excellent size/weight, and run great. You don't sound like a person who has any real world experience with this topic despite the authoritative tone in your responses.

AI mouse pointer is definitely not something I wanted to think about today. A recent HN post implored vibe coders not to modify the mouse pointer and now we get this from Google.

> The effects of social media usage are surely reversible by stopping using it and then some retraining of the brain

This is a reasonable, but optimistic take. The effects of social media on developing brains will need to be studied to be sure the effects are reversible. Furthermore, how extensive is the damage and how long does it take to reverse? Are older people less likely to recover?

The longer the manager is out of the game, the harder it is to return to the game. Returning to the game takes time. Depending on age and income, returning to the game may be impossible for some people over time.

We are not talking about perfection. We are talking about breaking a stable piece of software and affecting people's muscle memory with minimal upside to users. People provide for their families with Photoshop. It is unacceptable to push a change that impacts millions of people and then throw your hands up in the air and claim that this is all inevitable because perfection is impossible.

If this was a startup or new software finding a market fit it would be different. This is industry standard, professional software that impacts livelihoods. More thought should go into each release because of this fact.

> Shipping software is in perennial tension between getting it perfect and getting it out the door.

Photoshop is the premiere image editor that has been in existence for decades. The issues you are responding to are fundamental changes to how the application behaves. It defies belief that your team and its processes have this little respect for dedicated users who have spent thousands of dollars on your product over the course of years. I understand shipping software. Do you understand your users?

Why were these sharp edges not discovered in UAT? It seems hard to believe that the people who make Photoshop do not use Photoshop to the degree necessary to notice these regressions. How will you avoid these kinds of problems in future updates as your transition to a modern design continues?