voncheese

I'm old enough to have experience in alot of great office environments (and some terrible ones too), the good for sure outweighs the bad!

Your comment about Amazon sucking resonated as I recently talked with them about a job, but walked away being super disinterested. I do not think this is an Amazon problem (fwiw, I worked at Microsoft for a super long time), I think it's a "problem" with the massive success of technology in the world.

Back in the day of NeXT, Be and early Apple, it was alot about building something cool and fun and a less about the huge money that could/would be made. Now the whole world relies on technology and there is so much money that the environment of a tech company is alot more about the business than it is the technology.

I personally don't think thats necessarily a bad thing, it's just evolution of the technology business.

Amazing dedication and very inspiring. It's so awesome to read about what great things people can do when they are so focused on accomplishing something. And as other commenters have said, had no idea it took so many years of (mostly) one person.

Grand Day Out is a fantastic watch, the animation, characters and story telling are so fun for really anyone of any age.

Regarding "how is that a problem" it has nothing to do with the financial obligations (I agree with your take that the company is on the hook either way). It's about being able to learn and improve.

In order to learn and improve you have to know what went wrong, with AI being personified and pulled into the pool of entities that may be at fault, it makes it harder to figure out what actually went wrong and learn. Not impossible to figure out, just harder.

> My opinion, anything driven by an algorithm is inherently bad.

I really like this simple statement. It gets to the heart of what is bad about social media (at least to me). Its one thing if a site has the same content that I have to actually go and crawl through myself to find things that interest me, its another when the site thinks it knows what I want/like and guides me.

The former forces me to engage my brain and explicitly engage with content (good or bad) the latter enables my brain to implicitly engage with content (good or bad).

Thank you for the statement!

The interesting thing about AI v. other disruptive technologies (like the internet, steam engine, etc), is that AI has been personified both by the manufacturers of it (Anthropic being the most blatant by using a human name for its product) and users.

That makes it way more likely that people blame AI (doesn't make it right by any means, but does mean that the actual blame gets diffused even more).

Yeah this is a good point. They also have a feature that lets you build and mix playlists together with others, not my personal speed but adds to the stickiness.

Hadn't seen this quote before, amazing.

Also goes to show how hard it is to predict anything that is a massive change - these levels of changes are so infrequent that we can't rely on priors to predict the future.

Totally agree. They also have some stickiness going for them (at least for me). Now that I've organized my music in Spotify and have my habits in place that deal with the crummy UX, I've gotten numb to the poor UX.

Case in point, I make a daily playlist for running and that UX is frequently changing and often for the worse, but I deal with it because it's a habit that costs me a few seconds maybe a minute per day. The cost of switching to a new thing just feels daunting so I stay.

I also am guilty of enjoying the wrapped summaries at the end of the year :)

I don't disagree with anything said here, but it sure would be nice if Meta (and any other companies building social media applications) focused more on what's right for children, both short and long term, than the math of what is profitable.

Yeah came here to say the same thing on the lack of absolute units.

Speaking as an older vinyl collector myself, with kids who have also gotten into it...it would surprise me if the total unit numbers were even within 2 orders of magnitude.

Vinyl just feels different. The feeling of holding the cardboard cover and the weight of the album on a turntable can't be replicated at all with CDs.

Agreed and it's unlikely to slow down that descent into slop coding until there are some visible issues with it. The market (i.e. companies) are going all in on AI coding because everyone else is doing it and the concern (understandably) is that if a company doesn't join that race they will lose because they never even entered the race.

The trick will be for companies to go fast enough to be in the race, not winning it, just in it. That will allow the time/space to let someone else, whoever is going fastest, to trip and fall so the rest of the pack can learn.

The tip and fall moment could come as a major incident (reliability and/or security) or loss of revenue because of bad products that customers don't like enough to use.

> There's a world of difference between managing a dozen or so individual contributors vs managing senior managers / directors.

I agree, but in my opinion, your point about needing to know how things work still holds. It's less relevant as you move up to managing managers and larger orgs, but it never goes to zero if you're going to be successful.

Could this be a good thing - yes

Will it be is a different thing though. And if it’s not, who exactly is accountable?

With funds and portfolio managers that run them, there’s a clear accountability model (if the fund sucks, the manager loses their job and the company loses credibility)

With AI agents doing the management, who is accountable when the fund sucks? If it’s the customer, we’ve moved accountability from someone who at least in theory, knows what they’re doing to someone who has little to no clue.

Sure, still need to enable access the same info but feels like bucketing the clients into

bucket1 = clients that were working just fine before (users and whatever automation they had in place) bucket2 = ai clients that contributed to, if not flat out caused, the scale problems

then slowing down/limiting the bucket2 clients while keeping the bucket1 clients rolling as-is, is both doable and keeps existing customers happy while the underlying infra gets scale/perf improvements needed to support ai clients at scale.