If your work is parallizable, you can get more done. Eg more enterprise features you weren't currently going to do, more sales calls, more marketing campaigns, etc. mythical man month only applies to highly coupled work with large ramp time. Engineers often don't spend enough time planning to keep work decoupled (and with less people it's unnecessary overhead to do so).

Not necessarily true even for seemingly parallelizable work.

I can often do 3 unrelated tickets faster than I can hand 2 off to 2 devs. The PM will wish we could parallelize, but sadly conceptual locality is a thing.

I work on OS/embedded and my wife in server backend. I definitely feel like a simpleton when trying to understand all of the high level stuff she works on. It doesn't invalidate my own expertise. There is nothing wrong with acknowledging someone has skills that you don't have and likely would take a long time to pick up.

Have you heard of fastmod?

A single product meant for all the users will inevitably be a poor fit for most of them. We need more variety of products for the different segments of the market. Alternatively we need more knobs to tune things to user needs. One promise of AI is enabling folks to personalize product experiences, but so far it's all been surface level.

I think the desktop Linux ecosystem is an example of something healthier, but it goes too far in the other direction. There are too many options to choose from that it's hard to find the one for your needs.

Anti trust laws do not generally apply to these situations. The government has had an appetite for antitrust, but the cases are far from a slam dunk. We need modern laws for modern problems.

Those laws used to apply, until the courts adopted Robert Bork's "consumer welfare standard" in the 80s, under Reaganism.

Analyzed well here: https://yalelawjournal.org/pdf/e.710.Khan.805_zuvfyyeh.pdf

For now. We are training our replacement. They will learn how to do this sort of work over time, likely shorter than you might expect.

This is optional functionality which a subset of their important customers want. You will continue to have options that do not make use of this feature.

As someone with children, I see benefits in how age verification will help me manage my kids relationship with technology. Even if it was not the law, I would choose products with support. The point of open source is to allow for both options.

Linux and OSS has customers?

The two couldn't be more unrelated. The idea that age verification in an OS is bad is a niche position by a select few. You don't hear dissenting views on hackernews because the majority here belong to that group and going against the grain is down voted. On the other hand, you're comparing it to killing humans. Making everything into a moral dilemma cheapens the argument. Just because you disagree with the law doesn't give you moral high ground to ignore it. I think cookie consent questions are terrible but I'd not dream of not adding one if compelled by law

This is an argument that the law sometimes is clearly in the wrong.

> The idea that age verification in an OS is bad is a niche position by a select few

I am pretty sure that's not true.

just because the state called their demands and threats a 'law' doesn't give them a "moral high ground" to force everyone to comply with their demands.

What if the OS had a mandatory ethnicity check?

Let’s ask IBM.

I always approve a change with comments for nits that are optional to address. I only hold back approval if there is a legitimate flaw of some sort. Generally this leads to small changes almost always getting approved on the first shot, but larger changes needing at least one back and forth. AI code review tools make it much easier to spot legitimate problems these days.

Or the reviewer feels responsible for the output of the code from the person they are reviewing or the code they are modifying. For instance a lead on the team gets credit for the output of the team Also, wanting to catch bugs on review before they make your on call painful can be a large motivation.