I’m not sure you’ll read this because you made an obvious throwaway, but your action/comment is clearly not appropriate for a place like HN. And from the comments in general, it seems like maybe this article isn’t either.
Nope. I didn't feel like spending the time to read the code, but I did want an LLM to pull out specific pieces for me and compare them to other published info. This is a good way to use LLMs: ask them to organize data for you to consider yourself and come to your own conclusion.
In this case, the info I looked at changed my opinion (downwards) on how cynical this release really was.
I wonder if this happens because there isn't enough important work to be handed out, which then results in people fighting over scope.(due to leadership bandwidth being saturated)
Does Alphabet/Google suffer from the same problem? I wonder if the various org mechanisms they have in place allow for ambitious people to channel their energies to build things instead of clawing scope from others.
I haven’t worked at Google, but I doubt they’re immune.
Lack of “important work” is one mechanism, but in the case I’m describing the issue was overlapping legitimacy: multiple orgs had good reasons to own the same scope. Hardware felt insecure about ML moving elsewhere, SWE had real product needs, AI/ML wanted centralization.
The problem is clearly spelled out. Apples App Store policies make it incredibly hard to create apps that fall into the grey zone.
An intimacy/sex journaling app shouldn’t be something that’s near to impossible to find on the App Store if the person searching for it is a grown adult.
