Jagerbizzle

I've worked with a number of people who were like this at MSFT. They've all been laid off.

I'm a Microsoft employee who historically would have probably taken this offer. For now I agree with your take: why bother taking this when I can just instead take the inevitable layoff in the next 3-9 months.

Who has time to design things these days?

We’ve already stopped bothering with human reviews where I’m at.

As someone that has revived and started maintaining an internal code review tool, I'm very interested in reading more about Antique.

I could still do my job by typing all code into notepad, but companies don't charge employees for their IDE usage for a reason.

Likely not for long now that I've taken a glance at the other headlines on this site...

Replying here without having read any of the sub-replies so I apologize if this is a repeated theme.

I have explicit markdown about telling the model to not write comments. "Every time you consider writing a comment, instead consider re-writing the code that questioned you to write said comment to begin with. Write comments only when logic is complicated or unclear, otherwise 'comment' via naming."

The results thus far have been much better.

I'm seeing code reviews at my work where indeed, we have 10 line comment blocks for a line of code and now I just straight up don't read comments.

Sad state of affairs -- (emdash deliberately used here) but I guess the sooner the human gets out of the loop the better in this new world.

"leveraging their infra" is a pretty solid play, considering the scope of investments these two companies have made thus far.

Fantastic post. This sums up my experience perfectly with a near identical time frame to yours.

I believe you’re confusing access with outcomes. Giving people access to markets isn’t exploitation afaic.

If you’d like to make dubious trades that’s your prerogative and who am I to stop you.

I'm with you on this one, having "vibe coded" some smaller internal tools on GPT 5, and then re-vibed it on Opus 4.6 and 5.5 -- they basically just fixed all of the problems without me doing much of anything other than prompting it to look at the existing code and make it "better".

Captains can't decide to substitute/bench one of their teammates in the middle of a game.

I answered this in a different comment below, but a lot of the friction is around the amount of time it takes to test/review/submit etc, and a lot of this is centered around tooling that no one has had the time to improve, perf problems in clunky processes that have been around longer than anyone individual, and other things of this nature. Addressing these issues is now approachable and doable in one's "spare time".

It sounds like you might have some larger process problems if someone can just inject a bunch of vibe-coded slop into critical workflows while more discerning eyes are dubious of the quality/reliability etc.

honest recommendation: nuke and pave after analyzing (w/ AI of course) where it went horribly wrong.

it's trivial to reimplement a better solution.

We've had a lot of complaints about our review processes, time to submit, etc, and a lot of that boils down to tools no one has time to improve.

It's now trivial to fix these problems while still doing our day jobs -- shipping a product.

I'm sorry to hear that you have people abusing their new superpowers.

I run a team and am spending my time/tokens on serious pain points.

I'm burning an insane number of tokens 8-12 hours a day for the dramatic improvement of some internal tooling at a big tech company. Using it heavily for an unannounced future project as well.

I presume I'm not the only one.

This is the company that allowed a vibe-release resulting in the leaking the entirety of the Claude Code codebase. What is the bar you're expecting here exactly?

You can use the Copilot CLI with the atlassian mcp to super easily edit/create confluence pages. After having the agent complete a meaningful amount of work, I have it go create a confluence page documenting what has been done. Super useful.

Also, with an LLM you can tell it to throw away everything and start over whenever you want.

When you do this with an outsourced team, it can happen at most once per sprint, and with significant pushback, because there's a desire for them to get paid for their deliverable even if it's not what you wanted or suffers some other fundamental flaw.

Fair point. I've wasted way too much time arguing about this in my org. The messaging is effectively that the "data" (which is never presented to anyone) indicates on-site is better, and if you disagree, feel free to go test the job market.

No disagreements there (I'm at Microsoft). I should also note that in the part of the org I work, exceptions are re-evaluated every quarter.

This announcement is pretty much meaningless, as it's completely up to the VPs of a given org to set the policy. Many teams have already been back 3-5 days a week for over a year, and exceptions aren't hard to get if you're a senior+ employee or otherwise have considerations that prevent this from being feasible.

EM = Engineering Manager IC = Individual Contributor

I guess there's no 'M' in "FAANG" but there's this:

https://www.geekwire.com/2025/im-good-for-my-80-billion-what...

Man do I ever miss this UI design. Nice work!

US Senators make $193,400 per year and there are 100 of them. This ~20mil doesn't exactly stack up to the ~1.8 trillion of US government discretionary spending (or ~4 trillion of 'mandatory' spending).

I'd like to get on the pre-order list for this product.