jensensbutton

Yes

This is how a lot of folks get stuck at the "Senior" level. They try to write code harder instead of leveling up the abstraction layer of the problems they're solving. Anecdotally, many people don't know how to make that pivot.

This is giving some serious "take a position then write an article to try and prove it's the right one" vibes. The "data" cited is laughable, as is the analysis.

Meta did RTO and just had one of the strongest quarters in history. I guess that "proves" that RTO is actually beneficial and that people trying to wfh are just lazy.

Why is this even shared here? What a joke.

Seems like an OS problem. They should fix that.

I cannot imagine being upset over this instead of the fact that data brokers can sell all this info in the first place.

If they ever want to not live alone they'll still want a TV.

> choosing which work to be done, deciding whether work is good enough

The author elides over the fact that I'm knowledge work it is typically the manager's experience of having developed competency themselves that makes them effective at deciding which work to do and evaluating that work.

I wonder if the author would bet on a tech company that decided to fill their management ranks with new grads.

Meta open source

Snowflake... is not cheap.

This is a weird comparison. You can use PHP to power an SPA with SSR. It's not an either or.

> asynchronous communication involves less frequent, but richer communication

Problem is that most people aren't good at written communication. They're passable, but not good. This means the communication isn't actually "richer" it's just longer.

The rise of remote has led to so many wasted hours (for the author and readers) due to RFCs and proposals that just never had the chance of going anywhere, because the people that could help don't have time to figure out what the author is actually asking for or trying to get done.

Then people whine about how no one is listening to their great ideas.

I mean, they can just as easily tell you to deal with in-person. This isn't a particularly useful contribution imo.

Facebook uses Outlook, Amazon uses multiple MS products internally (and computers), and Microsoft of course. Not to mention all of these company's non-technical organizations leverage Microsoft software because of, you know, the ease of doing business.

> Teams would never have gotten any success without malpractice. The product is an incredible horror show..."

And yet no one sees enough value in Slack to pay for it. I type this on a mac, which has built in notes, but I pay for my own notes solution. My company uses Zoom DESPITE paying for gsuite. If Slack offered enough value people would pay for it. Unfortunately Slack's just not that good.

> Competition is better than no competition.

But Slack competed. It forced Microsoft to improve, then it lost. "Competition" doesn't mean artificially keep competitors alive when they can't survive on their own. If Slack was that much better then we wouldn't be having this convo because companies would see the value and pay for it.

The actual problem is that companies just aren't seeing that much value in Slack.

Given the size of the only companies you were able to list it doesn't seem like innovation for the sake of impact is cherished either.

At least 3 of the 5 big tech companies "impose" ms products and have done so for years as they grew. You're gonna miss out on a lot of upside with that mentality. To each their own though.

Does that mean local business would be cut out of internet advertising because ads can't be shown based on your city/state/country? That would be a tangible loss. "The amount of privacy we've globally lost" doesn't seem like a real thing.

> If it were true, Harvard etc wouldn’t also discriminate against Asians.

This logic makes absolutely no sense. Why can't they have a legacy admits AND discriminate against Asians? Are you seriously trying to claim Ivy League schools don't have legacy admits?

That is a MUCH larger investment than shipping some client side code though.

You conveniently left out the part where they address that:

> Unfortunately, the more structured, proactive alternatives cost a lot more of my time and effort, so it's all around less effective.

I think Zuckerberg is excited. Apple will only expand the market. I think it will be strictly beneficial to Quest regardless of what the blog/tech comparisons say.

PHPs language peers are things like Python and Ruby, both of which are slower.

gp is responding to a comment that calls the study propaganda based on their individual experience. Since everyone seems to be generalizing to an extreme degree it feels a bit disingenuous to call out this one just because you agree with gp.

> Thinking obviously isn't very important!

This is not obvious in the least. Thinking was required to produce the thing that could achieve the outcome that was defined by thought.

I could just as easily say that AI, as currently implemented, is really just another muscle.

I don't see why you think it would be easier to encode "curiosity" than "survival".

You would have to overcome the "barriers to entry", including large up front costs associated with a supermarket, before demonstrating profitability.

People don't like to hear this, but management jobs will be the least impacted.

The thing about FAANG is that very few experiences can be generalized, even within a single FAANG company. These companies are so massive that culture, tech, etc. can have huge amounts of variance between orgs let alone companies.

You start with a problem statement, not a root cause.

And root causes, especially for problems as complex this, is a fallacy.