It’s more likely what the grandparent was saying, I’m reminded of Steve Yegge’s rant from 15 years ago and it seems like not a lot has changed.
At some point, the metrics for delivering to customers runs counter to what the bureaucracy was building itself to actually deliver: jobs.
- Some GuyInteresting guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stafford_Beer
They don't give a shit. You can use Argon on Pro but not that pro and no not on that app which we depreciated but on this new app which will be depreciate before you can install it.
It honestly is really hard to figure out what to use and where. It shouldn't be. A pro plan is a pro plan. It doesn't matter if you get it via x,y or z. If there is difference based on where you get it, then call it something else and not a pro plan.
They make something are feel like its the best thing in the world and leave users behind to experience it hiding it behind obscure docs and hiddens T&C with no support. And users have no clue what and how to do it.
https://www.techemails.com/p/bill-gates-tries-to-install-mov...
Except I'm not sure Google has a Gates.
Nobody from the Google C-suite seems like they're ever trying to install their most important products, as a customer.
Compare to leadership likes Jobs, where he would spell out how it needs to function.
>> I am quite disappointed at how Windows Usability has been going backwards and the program management groups don't drive usability issues.
This is the Google of yesterday, they didn’t change.
So we should ask “why would it be different this time.”
I don't have enough information to judge how much of Chrome was original work and how much was pre-existing work. Though I guess by now, after nearly 20 years, Chrome's codebase looks absolutely nothing like KHTML.
Nevermind the controversies of silly ad campaigns and CEO salaries and whatnot.
Mozilla should have just reinvested all the money into Firefox. Heck, they couldn’t even finish their rust-based rendering engine.
I started using AWS when EC2 and S3 first came out, but was forced to switch to Gcloud by the most recent company I joined. I was pleasantly surprised. In many ways it's more techie-focused than AWS, which is more enterprise-focused. And their managed Kubernetes is second to none.
Google acquired it from Upstartle (the company behind the online word processor Writely).
Writely was created in 2005 by Claudia Carpenter, Steve Newman, and Sam Schillace. Google bought Upstartle in 2006 and Writely became the foundation of Google Docs. Google then combined it with other acquisitions, such as 2Web Technologies for spreadsheets, and launched Google Docs & Spreadsheets in October 2006.
may I ask why?
maybe spend a bit more time on the numbers presented in the announcement, which are pretty great
Your sarcasm is as low-effort as your original post.
Anyone with a functioning brain can see how
> You want an executive to issue a press release about how dysfunctional and bureaucratic their company is and that’s why it’s so hard for users to actually use these new models?
...is intentionally assigning beliefs to me purely from your own imagination without any connection to reality.
Your childish pretending that you didn't say something that is literally on record immediately above is a tactic employed by kindergartners, caught by their parents eating a cookie, who claim that they're not eating a cookie.
Putting too much effort into sarcasm doesn't work well usually; it works because it's low effort.
> is intentionally assigning beliefs to me ...Anyone with a functioning brain can see ...caught by their parents eating a cookie, who claim that they're not eating a cookie...
Who is assigning what beliefs to you? What cookies? Not sure what you're after here but sounds like you're a bit upset.
Your comment is exceptionally low effort by the standards of sarcasm. llama-3-8b-level, in that it's trivial, uninteresting, unamusing, uninformative, not clever, and incorrect.
> Who is assigning what beliefs to you?
You did, in the comment that I quoted from you immediately before my statement.
> Not sure what you're after here but sounds like you're a bit upset.
We've established that you have either a severe lack of reading comprehension or are maliciously lying, given that someone with rather below average intelligence would be able to tell that your comment assigns a belief to me that I never held, by reading the two sentences immediately adjacent to each other.
Most HN readers are capable of this reading comprehension, so anyone reading this thread will be able to tell that you're wrong, and I can link to this in the future if you make similarly deceptive comments.
Ok. Well, I found it amusing and interesting.
> You did, in the comment that I quoted from you immediately before my statement.
You still haven't quoted them. Just vague references and a lot of angry words.
> We've established that you have either a severe lack of reading comprehension or are maliciously lying, given that someone with rather below average intelligence would be able to tell that your comment assigns a belief to me that I never held, by reading the two sentences immediately adjacent to each other.
You still haven't quoted anything are just continuing with more insults.
> Most HN readers are capable of this reading comprehension, so anyone reading this thread will be able to tell that you're wrong,
Yes they are and it would look rather embarrassing for some of us... but I can't stop you ;-)
Factually incorrect.
You wrote:
> You want an executive to issue a press release about how dysfunctional and bureaucratic their company is and that’s why it’s so hard for users to actually use these new models?
In this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50284948
Which I quoted in my comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50288198
There we go. That's the quotation. Your claim that I never quoted is objectively, factually, trivially false.
This is wild. You literally not only forgot your own words that you wrote less than 12 hours ago, but you were incapable of reading the comment where I very clearly cited them right back to you.
This is sub-grade-school levels of memory and reading comprehension. That's not even an exaggeration - grade schoolers are easily capable of doing the ctrl-f levels of "find this exact string of text in this other string of text" that you just failed.
> is intentionally assigning beliefs to me purely from your own imagination without any connection to reality.
No, that part is asking a question. I assumed you misquoted that part and meant something else. Nobody is assigning you beliefs. The normal response to someone asking a question is saying something like "yes, that is exactly the proof I would expect" or "no, I would like an insider to come forward and give an account of X,Y,Z". You did neither and instead started with insults
> This is sub-grade-school levels of memory and reading comprehension.
Huh... you don't say
Now we know you're operating in bad faith.
There was nothing about my comment that remotely motivated a question like the one you asked - but you were, quite knowingly, implying that I believed that. This is known as a loaded question, and it's unambiguously malicious.
When I link this comment in other threads in the future, you'll be able to see that others can see it for what it is. Even on HN, only a vanishingly small fraction of individuals can't recognize a loaded question when they see one.
Edit: And, because you're acting in bad faith and will likely claim that there's no loaded question, I asked Gemini, Claude, ChatGPT, and Grok whether there was a loaded question in our exchange, and every single one of them said said that you embedded a loaded question (with ChatGPT also correctly identifying the implied accusation bundled in). Full prompt below - future HN readers, feel free to reproduce yourself :)
-------
is there a loaded question in this exchange?
A: This model is not for you or me. This model is for Google AI engineers to put on their perf review at the end of the year. How you find or not find it, it doesn't matter. It goes into the "designed and developed Gemini 4 Carbon Ultra Pro" paragraph and people get a promotion, get to keep their jobs and hope to not get replaced by Gemini 4 Carbon next year.
B: Uh, proof needed for this outlandish claim.
A: You want an executive to issue a press release about how dysfunctional and bureaucratic their company is and that’s why it’s so hard for users to actually use these new models?