Same. It’s hard to understand today, but in a world where search engines weren’t really a thing and almost no one knew what the internet was, the concept of “public” was quite different.
Yes, I should have known better in my teenage years about it. And also yes there was no reason for me to expect that everything I wrote would be easily available to some AI panopticon 30-40 years later
This was the problem I saw. I installed rtk when it came out and liked the idea of it. But over time with newer model generations I kept seeing the model get confused in the reasoning text and retry a command bypassing rtk. I didn't even need a benchmark to see it was regularly an impediment to the final outcome.
This sounds great until you've seen an AI generated & maintained repo go wildly off the rails and need to step in afterwards to fix it. Turns out some of those things still matter.
The problem is it's often the devs themselves who request the siloing. I used to assume otherwise, as I think the way you do. And then I had a lot of my devs rebelling because I was keeping them from their "real work" by having them deal with users.
> The problem is it's often the devs themselves who request the siloing
I used to be this developer.
The more the development team complains, the more valuable the system is. If there is never any friction between the developers and customers, it's likely that everyone is on the same page and the meeting is largely redundant.
I just call them not great developers. The users pay your fat salary and you yourself are a user for everything else in the world and at all other times. It's not some icky burden to talk to them or let them talk to you, it's the job. If you don't like the job, then you don't like the job, and should not be doing the job.
I don't have a lot of patience or sympathy for this attitude even though it's practically universal. There might be a few legitimate cases where someone basically has a handicap where they are clinically incapable, but then that's a handicap like a broken leg. A defect. Maybe it's ok to make allowances for them in the name of equality but it's absolutely making allowances, and should not be a norm and should not be something just everyone gets to claim for their mere comfort and convenience. IMO anyway if I were king and all that.
Maybe, but check if there's another level to it: is it because their performance review is based on metrics for which meeting with customers is a hindrance?
If I'm graded on getting tickets done or getting some feature out, then meeting with users may be beneficial and the right thing to do but incentives turn it into swimming upstream...
I live in Finland, where in "product companies" developers don't always speak great English. Or they might not speak Finnish if they're immigrants. So the employer wants to pick and choose product managers that they think are "presentable" enough in terms of linguistic or social competence to put directly in front of a customer. They seem to value this high enough that they are willing to take the productivity hit from the indirection.
Product manager skills do not overlap much with dev skills.
If I put some devs in front of a customer I'd be very much afraid of them doing what they ask rather than what they want, for instance, or overindexing on one particular customer's problem.
If the devs understand and can empathise with the users and there aren't a lot of them, sure, maybe but on most projects it's more effective to have the distilled and filtered customer feedback from a PM who is good at being a PM.
The flip side is I used to be the person that upgraded every year. Meanwhile I'm now sitting here with the most recent mini model and HODLing. I realize its' a drop in the bucket for them, it's their loss that I no longer purchase new equipment.
What's particularly frustrating about the discontinuing of the Mini is that it really didn't sell badly, just below _expectations_. Compared to every other model of phone sold by other manufacturers, I suspect the Mini outsold all but the most popular models.
From that perspective, the discontinuation feels more like an act of embarrassment by management than the result of a rational cost/benefit analysis. Given that reportedly the Air is selling substantially worse than the Minis, and I suspect the Duo will also fail to match its internal sales target because IMO Apple _usually_* overestimates the number of buyers willing to drop $2k+ for personal purchases (lots of corporations are willing to buy laptops for $2k+, but I suspect that almost all AVP/iPhone purchases are direct to consumer), I wonder if Ternus be willing to adopt a strategy that will keep profitable products around even if they don't meet their target. I suspect this is sort of an effect of the predictors being in some kind of high income bubble where _everyone_ they know has enough cash to drop $3500 to try out an AVP.
I had a Mini 12 and upgrade every 3 years, so I didn't bother with a mini 13. I ended up buying a base 15 and hoping that I wouldn't mind it, but my regret has only gotten stronger over time.
* Exception: they have dramatically underestimated the number of people wanting to buy high ram minis/studios for local AI.
> I suspect that almost all AVP/iPhone purchases are direct to consumer
I have worked for multiple companies that provide iPhones to employees, but neither of them would budget for the newest best version, unlike with the macbook pros. Companies know that if they buy devs computers with more ram and a bigger high resolution screen, we will get more done, but the main reason to provide a top end iPhone is as a perk.
Might be different with the Duo because I can see an argument for it being a better productivity device for people who need to send a lot of emails from a mobile.
There's a sizeable amount of us. I finally had the battery changed in my 13 Mini a few months ago. I don't want a larger phone.
The Duo has the same diagonal as a Mini when closed (5.4"), so I'd love to see them eventually embrace that size and release a 7:5 ratio SE or something similar.
> So this is probably a really niche complaint that you and Shaq have
I developed a hypothesis when the phablets first started showing up and still feel it holds. There are two main clusters of users:
1) People who use their phone "on the go", specifically walking around and that sort of thing. Like I'm walking down the sidewalk and pull it out to check a message or see directions.
2) People who use their phone while stationary. Sitting on the couch, on the subway, on an airplane, that sort of thing.
People in group 1 generally lean towards smaller phones as the single handed usage comes in handy. You're not trying to surf the web doing this, so you don't need full usage, but you need to be able to hold it in your hand.
The people who are more stationary users don't have this restriction and they're more likely to want the full functionality when they're using it.
Yes, I should have known better in my teenage years about it. And also yes there was no reason for me to expect that everything I wrote would be easily available to some AI panopticon 30-40 years later
reply