I can't wait for the inevitable lawsuits that will result when this technology is white-labeled and misrepresents the business to customers or investors.
You should be able to know this through a defined engineering process, and the signals that this process produces (standups, ticket progress, etc). Regularly interrupting people to get status updates is not the way to do it.
These have always been an enormous waste of time from my perspective. They only serve to make a manager feel like they know what everyone is doing, all the time. Anything process-wise should be handled through scrum. Anything personal can be handled with ad-hoc 1-on-1 meetings as needed, but should be pretty rare. 1-on-1s for process really do harm to transparency and accountability. If I had a nickel for every time I've been given tasks or been "re-oriented" in a 1-on-1, outside of scheduled work...
You can ask ChatGPT if you can run it locally, and it will happily say it is open source, then give 2 github.com links that 404 and then say it doesn't know where the code is if you press it for answers.
That's the intention. Suggesting that there is something wrong with that is implying that it is not designed to be that way. People barely struggling to stay afloat means the system is close to an optimized state. If people have any excesses, it means there's more fat to trim away.
While I agree, you're right, nobody wants to hear it. There's no point telling people to have discipline, because discipline is not spread through strangers telling each other to have it. Someone either has the capacity to have discipline (instilled through upbringing or formative events), or they don't. These magic pills are for everyone who doesn't have discipline.
It's not a nonsensical "spherical cow in vacuum" thought experiment to say "Pixar exists but some employees are treated bad" vs "Pixar doesn't exist". If you think that it becomes impossible for a rational mind to weigh those two choices, then there's no point in me continuing this discussion with you.
Yes, because a and b represent a specific combination I said I was interested in exploring. What you've shown doesn't lower the plausibility of those scenarios. Are you being intentionally contrarian or is there a reason why you are trying to muddy a simple thought experiment?
So far I haven't seen a counter experience from you about how Jobs treated the "regular workers" at Pixar, so as I see it, it's a quote from people who were close to what happened versus the absence of a counter experience.
I addressed why the hypothetical is limited to two options, and taking a subset of plausible scenarios does not reduce the plausibility of the selected scenarios.
A legendary animator and director, both who helped found Pixar with Jobs, aren't credible because they became so successful that they're now millionaire executives?
"Steve took a chance on us and believed in our crazy dream of making computer-animated films; the one thing he always said was to simply 'make it great.' He is why Pixar turned out the way we did and his strength, integrity, and love of life has made us all better people. He will forever be a part of Pixar's DNA."
It's not an unreal scenario at all. It's entirely plausible that a company falls apart when lacking the specific motivators and pressures that Jobs brought, and therefore never really exists in the first place. What's unreal about that?
If the question is "Is the limited bullying and serfdom of 40 people (the original Pixar team size) justified by bringing joy to billions of people (more accurate than millions) for decades (and likely a lot longer)?" Then I answer yes. I think that's a small price to pay.
If the two options are "Pixar exists, but some employees were treated unfairly" or "Pixar never exists", I will choose the first. Whether or not there are other options is not a hypothetical I care about, I am interested in thinking about the morality of ends vs means of this scenario.
Simply "disagreement" implies that there are valid opinions and perspectives to engage about. What we have now is a culture so polarized that you are literally evil to the other side if you disagree. We can't afford to have simple disagreements because if the other tribe destroys you, you need your tribe to support you.
For example, name something of real political consequence that it is acceptable to disagree about. It is a struggle to come up with a single example.
If you wanted to wash your hands of the Bad Things this might do, I would put a disclaimer somewhere on the site and on the tool's output. Something along the lines of "Running commands produced by this tool may cause damage to your system. Please review each suggestion carefully." Otherwise someone is going to be very upset by a rogue suggestion.