aristofun
For current left this period is now.
But Europe uniquely eradicates systemic innovation process regardless of current downturn. By completely ignoring its needs and diving deeper and deeper into their weird mix of socialism and government/old money controlled monopolism.
Have you seen what crap cars even german manufacturers produce lately?
100s companies are already just a wrapper around their models.
They trade a little profit margin for avoidng a mountain of risks each of those companies bear.
Eventually they will buy/kill most profitable and less risky of them (cash cows). But now they have their own problems to solve.
I doubt people developing safari and mail app are actually using them outside of work.
Apple keeps holding a “hardware company” flag, despite some occasional wins.
I understand it deeper than you think.even maybe deeper then author think he does.
The only singals that matter i already mentioned. Everything else must submit to this ultimate goal. If that’s the case there is no reason to invent anything even metaphorically speaking. And platform requirements arise naturally to exact extent the user problem justifies, not more not less etc.
This is probably a fundamental philosophical division between “engineers” who love to engineer for the sake of engineering, who are arrogant enough to treat their trade as an art form even.
And between mere mortals, regular engineers, who are hungry for solving real world problems as efficiently and quickly as possible.
Instead of figuring out the mess and navigating the peculiarities of another “platform team” in a big org.
For example
> Thankfully, the signals that help us to invent work are already out there, and they arrive from four directions - from the systems, from the users, from your organization, and from the industry. What follows is a guide to reading each of them.
In a good “ideal” org the only source of requirements should be users, aka customers, aka real people, user facing products, teams etc.
There must be no room for speculations and “engineering” (aka over engineering), nor performance review driven development.
I would personally fire anyone “inventing” work. Even if it’s myself.
Otherwise having same password on every service doesn’t look secure, and what would you need to do if it’s compromised.
No amount of pseudo-philocophical and quasi-historical research can change this basic fact.
Naive attempt of some buddhists to reduce (in their eyes of course its the highest compliment) other religion figures to mere "buddha" label is nothing but silly, laymen kitchen theology. It is disrespectful to both buddhism and other religion.
And apples are oranges.
Sorry they are completely different traits. They can go hand in hand or support each other in certain individual, or they can manifest similarly, but its far from being a general rule.
Far beyond mouse, stylus wich are themselves infinitely superior to touchscreen.
that means your "spec" is essentially a code and the point you're trying to make is empty
If european innovative companies and small businesses flourish in 10 years - I'll be the first to apologize and admit the mistake.
But there are just no signs of it today. While plenty of signs and data supporting my point.
Those 2 instances were actually pretty enjoyable, educational and very productive team work.
I don't see that anymore these days. I only see teams adopting bits of it (mostly "sprints" idea) without actually trying to make the whole thing work. To some degree - WFH was the last nail in the coffin.
To be fair modern big tech are not made for this. Overwhelming levels of bureacracy, accidental complexity, cross org friction just ruins the "agile" ideas and intended dynamics.
Suppose some top executive has a choice - do something right for long term success of a company vs something sketchy and detrimental but get huge yearly bonus in the pocket.
Are you rock solid you yourself would always go with the right thing?
I attribute that to me not being a native speaker. I always feel they all speak like Im 100, not ten.
Because of abundance of peculiar terminology, unusual ways of doing and describing things, extreme diversity of accents etc sometimes it feels like people intentionally make things more complicated than they are.
It’s sometimes harder for me to understand and make sense than most boring philosophical lectures on youtube.
After a certain threshold of complexity and size any software becomes a collection of trade offs and compromises, never something you might call a “clean architecture”. Its a red herring, myth, utopia.
It’s a thousand years old attempt to calculate and reduce the complexity of real world interactions and problems to a bunch of mathematically elegant metaphors and formulas.
The threshold is usually very low - first bunch of real world paying customers, real world usecases, startup market fit etc.
Who do you think created the discipline? Why? Who invested their resources and capital in its development? Why?
You can downvote me ad much as you can, but it doesn’t make you a special techincally enlightened cookie.
And this wouldn’t magically make programming an art form (ad many of people like you mistakenly think). It was always a trade, not designed to be enjoyed or have fun about (that happens accidentally every now and then).
But even if you consider it an art form, form of expressing identity, individuality - you are free to do that as much as you like. And I would be truly happy for you.
But don’t be naive and arrogant to consider yourself smart vs them dumb juniors. And to be resentful about genuine technological progress in the field.
Therefore it’s not AI fault that you built your identity on sand.
The goal had always been - delivering value, solving problems.
How about building your identity around that and see what happens?
In this context AI is nothing but good news, with proper attitude and skill it helps achieving the goal better, faster.