elktown

[flagged]

[flagged]

[flagged]

There are more ways to behave badly than to call someone bad words. If you’re being that literal.

I guess I don't value the stoic leadership ideal as much as you do.

[flagged]

I'm sorry but I honestly think this is just being superficial wanting to push it through some kind of corporate speak filter to be able to stomach it.

Using phrases like "stinky manager"

I would've used a worse adjective given the WLB tweet etc. Is it just because stinky itself has a childish tone to it rather than something like shitty? Or do one need to reach to somewhat open-ended terms like "questionable" to be palatable?

implying by not going to university he was too stupid to think critically about his path forward

I read that as emphasizing the Thiel Fellowship part, not the lack of university education.

I don't interact with Zig or Bun, but I certainly haven't been enticed to try Zig after this.

I'm so tired of "I've never played [game] & have never had any intention to play [game] whatsoever, but given [newfound-grievance] I wont buy it!"-style dismissals - talking about childishness.

It's all about tone. The original bad behavior is done without overt "bad tone" but if the response to it is spicy then the former is ignored and the latter is condemned despite being of lesser severity.

I can buy that it can be good corporate politics to not upset the superficial crowd that will immediately lash out on tone, but I will not judge someone rightfully reacting on bad behavior that they've been on the receiving end of.

Also, I didn't say being rude is a sign of honesty, that's you extrapolating.

No, it's embarrassing being obsessed with good tone to the point that people behaving badly should never be called out for it.

The article provides good background into how it got to this point - and it fits well with doing an opportunistic AI rewrite after being acquired by an AI provider.

That this is a technological decision rather than rationalizations (e.g. fixing self-inflicted problems are now marketed as a rewrite win) that Rust is a better fit for an Anthropic-owned project.

Given the chronology set out by Andrew, I think it's warranted anyway.

It's depressing seeing so little critical thinking despite clear and obvious incentives (Bun now being part of Anthropic) behind the reckless decisions that's been made here. Judging by this thread a well-formed article is all that's required for lots of people to just take everything at face value since it confirms the biases of what's currently fashionable.

That's due to moving away from the government ensuring an adequate supply of rental units over the last decades. Intentional free market style policies.

Because tech is so deeply hooked on fashion and short-termism that it’ll make both a Temu & Wall street exec blush in envy. LLMs floods both these receptors like the Great flood.

I'd expect GitLab to have contractors as well like most companies. Unclear if there's a significantly larger amount at Valve. It's a large gap to fill with contractors though to reach GitLab numbers.

GitLab is also a smaller company than I'd expect Valve to be - given its products & reach - if it was public and went through the same kind of inflation process.

This was in relation to employee count, not valuation.

I do think there's a certain level of vagueness and lack of rigor that permeate throughout (software) tech that enables self-serving to a greater extent than usual. I agree though that it's to be expected in most corps at a certain level where that vagueness also starts to appear.

Yup, it's certainly a mix. I think the stock market incentive is most obvious for the usual VC-style "this must look presentable to the stock market before IPO"-spiel. After that I'd expect management/corp politics incentives to play a larger part indeed.

But isn't tech a bit unique in how accepted this kind of self-serving corruption is at pretty much all levels? From the "This might require a few extra folks, but I want to pad my resume" IC level all the way up to "Let's make this look good for Wall Street" exec level.

I think the unfortunate reality is that lots of companies in our industry have suspiciously inflated employee counts in the first place. Even when removing AI and the pandemic over-hiring, I wouldn't have been surprised to see corrections sooner or later.

Employee count seems to correlate to stock market incentives - which is how GitLab is like 5x larger than Valve.

People are far too charitable about an industry with chronic short-term thinking. We'll just lower the standards to whatever fits the success story.

I thinking that it’s quite a different experience going all Jackson Pollock with AI in your own studio on your own terms, compared to the sorry state of affairs of having 100s of Pollocks throwing paint around wildly within a corp to meet a paint quota.

I think it’s just a corporate rug pull. Anthropic’s needs are the sole priority, all others be damned.

Aha, it's public. That explains the inflated employee count. Same story every time.

People are seriously naive about corporate incentives. You think he'll go "Yeah, it being in Zig has put a wrench in our AI usage and that's not a good look now that we're with Anthropic"? No, he'll confirm everyone's biases instead - and it's working as well as expected on this crowd.

That the incentives have changed after being bought by Anthropic. So don't be surprised by a sudden change of heart.

"Show me the incentive and I'll show you the outcome" is usually the overarching law of software dev/design/arch.

First thing I thought about. I have no reason to believe that it’s not accurate for most contemporary tech corps.

I'm afraid the bloat is too lucrative for everyone involved.

I'd argue on the contrary that it's the last decades' over-engineering bender that's coming home to roost. Now too many things have too many moving parts to keep stable.

You'll be thoroughly disappointed by your own comment history.