I agree that this is true 90% of times but if you included office politics in the equation sometimes it is not.
If it is in a deep political institution these are the initial set of questions I would start with:
Who is the Jr to the the VP, what are their relation ? How is your Jr to the manager ? How is the manager relation to the VP? How respectful to boundaries the VP is to the boundaries? How likely is for him to repeat or to get you shoved out the way next time ? How much do you care about being put astray in comparison to the quality of overall work ? How many times this has occurred before ? How likely is for the Jr to bypass you anyway ?
And as one can see, this is just too much to bother with. Sometimes it is easier to cry out that you need more money and or time.
I would do the same by the way. Make the distraction go away and try to put things back into the process route. If the process does not work and this is constant there is no reason to tell the person that pays you that they are always wrong.
I think the scenario is correct, the analysis for each choice seems to be realistic but this dialog would be finished after a couple of interactions for sure.
(I think 1.9 USD is more realistic than 19 USD for now. I don't want to say the product is bad, it is hard to evaluate it at 19 USD for this simple interaction. For a QA simulation with multiple choices seems quite pricey)
Fair point! $19 for just this one interaction would be steep.
The intention is that the license covers the Full Library (I'm building 12+ scenarios covering Firing, Performance Reviews, Hiring, etc.).
But your comment proves I failed to communicate that scope more better on the landing page. It looks like a 'Single Level' purchase right now, which is definitely not the value prop. I will revisit my messaging. Thanks for the heads up.
I would argue that the price is too low. Any price under $200 is practically free to the employee with so many companies providing learning and development budgets.
You hit the nail on the head regarding L&D psychology. For corporate budgets, $19 signals 'toy,' not 'training.'
My current logic: I'm optimizing for the individual dev/lead paying out of pocket who wants to start now without asking a manager for approval. The goal is to be below the 'mental friction' threshold for a personal impulse buy.
But for a Team/Enterprise version (where the manager buys it for 5 people), you are absolutely right—the pricing structure needs to look very different.
Many companies have discretionary budgets fully in control of the employee. For example, I had $2,500 per year to spend on valid expenses without needing prior approval.
That sounds like a manager budget.
My rationale of 19$ is considering the global audience and budget.
I do have a vision of introducing team licenses later but currently focused on gathering volume and feedback!
Internal Propaganda. You show to your own people, that you can cut off the enemies' communication lines easily.
External Propaganda. You show to the enemies that they are vulnerable, spreading fear and doubt in their own strength.
Exercises for larger operations. You train ships' crews for those kinds of maneuvers, in case you need to to it a large number of times, e.g. to cut off all baltic cables at once, cut all transatlantic cables, cut all cables to some important island like Iceland, etc.
Internal Normalisation. You get the ships' crews, your population and your governance structures used to a more aggressive mode of operations.
External Normalisation. You get the enemies' population and governance structures used to those kinds of pinpricks. So when the large-scale operation starts, they will ignore the first signs as "just the usual irrelevant pinpricks".
Testing and mapping connectivity. When the cable goes down, you can have your spies look at which relevant infrastructure goes down at the same time.
This is one of the best, succinct lists of motivations for hybrid warfare i've seen.
But i could suggest another potential benefit for russia:
If russia already operates under the assumption that they are in a (cold) war with EU/NATO, and they don't care about the effects on the relationship with Finland. Then this may simply be a really low cost, high damage operation. That not only imposes the replacement cost of the cable, but also forces countries to invest in counter measures.
One day they might send 20 ships all at once to cut all overseas cables in one go, and it won’t seem like the preparation for an invasion but just another provocation.
By that same morning they start the invasion of Estonia / the Baltics and separated them from the world through communications jamming and cutting all overseas cables. Without NATO support the Baltics are ocuppied by the same afternoon. In 12-16 hours Rússia has essentially re-occupied them.
Well, Putin doesn't always follow logic. Logically, all these provocations make Europe more united. But in his mind he's probably doing some kind of force projection and punishment for supporting Ukraine.
Batch cooking is the only way to have two working adults.
I love to cook though, so at home, one cooks the batch part and the other does a different meal for the weekend.
We think our cooking is much better than almost all restaurants we go (and we heard from others that our guests usually thinks the same).
there are indications that cooking and doing other house related chores are actually beneficial for the mind. Cooking is specially important.
I don't know the reasons as I only read parts of papers and posts about it, but it seems something related to human brain evolution, but I am no expert. If someone knows more I would be happy to know
Tldr; initially I thought we might be onto something, but now, I don't see much of a revolution.
I won't put intention into the text because I did not check any other posts from the same guy.
That said, I think this revolution is not revolutionary yet.
Not sure if it will be, but maybe?
What is happening os that companies are going back to "normal" number of people in software development. Before it was because of adoption to custom software, later because of labour shortage, then we had a boom because people caught up into it as a viable career but then it started scaling down again because one developer can (technically) do more with AI.
There are huge red flags with "fully automated" software development that are not being fixed but for those outside of the expertise area, doesn't seem relevant. With newer restrictions related to cost and hardware, AI will be even a worse option unless there is some sort of magic that fixes everything related to how it does code.
The economy (all around the world) is bonkers right now.
Honestly, I saw some Jr Devs earning 6 fig salaries (in USD) and doing less than what me and my friends did when we were Jr. There is inflation and all, but the numbers does not seem to add.
Part of it all is a re- normalisation but part of it is certainly a lack of understanding of software and/or// engineering.
Current tools, and I include even those kiro, anti-gravity and whatever, do not solve my problems, just make my work faster.
Easier to look for code, find data and read through blocks of code I don't see in a while.
Writing code not so much better. If it is simple and easy it certainly can do, but for anything more complex it seems that it is faster and more reliable to do myself (and probably cheaper)
As a developer for almost 30 years now, if I think where most of my code went, I would say, quantitatively, to the bin.
I processed much data, dumps and logs over the years. I collected statistical information, mapped flows, created models of the things I needed to understand.
And this was long before any "big data" thing.
Nothing changed with AI. I keep doing the same things, but maybe the output have colours.
Heh...I've worked for 25 years and basically I'm yet to put code into production. Mostly projects that were cancelled or scrubbed either during development or shortly after or just downright never used since they were POC/prototypes.
I think I've overall just had just 2 or 3 projects where anyone has actually even tried the thing I've been working on.
That holds true for a tailor, even expensive clothing items eventually wear out and get thrown away. They are cared for better, repaired a few times, but in the end, disposed of. I’d say that analogy holds up for 'traditionally' created software vs. AI-created software. Handmade clothes vs. fast fashion.
The code was just created to support some broader goal, which it presumably did much of the time. The value of those goals is where the meaning comes from.
A chef reflecting on their life would hardly lament that every meal they'd ever crafted ended up in the bin (or the toilet).
For me, there is concerning a flag about all of this.
I know this is not always true, but on this case, crucial folks say the margins for end user are too low and they have demand for AI.
I suppose they do not intend to bring a new AI focused unit because it is not worth it or they believe the hype might be gone before it they are done.
But what intrigues me is why they would allow other competitors to step up in a segment they dominate?
They could raise the prices for the consumers if they are not worried about competition...
There is a whole "not-exactly" ai industry labeled as AI that received a capital t of money. Is that what they are going for?
So my understanding of the situation is that, Crucial folks had downsized their factory production (see my other comments for reference perhaps) but then AI involvement started demanding chips just at the time their factory production was at their lows.
So now for these AI companies, they got tons of money to burn so they are willing to pay a lot more, so now crucial only have a limited supply of ram and the thing is there isn't much difference between AI chip and consumer chip but the margins of AI chip are super higher compared to consumer chip
So earlier they would sell consumer chips and AI chips as well but then the AI companies still demanded even more and they would get insane profits selling them so what they did (atleast crucial) is that they stopped selling consumer chips just to sell AI chips for profit.
> I suppose they do not intend to bring a new AI focused unit because it is not worth it or they believe the hype might be gone before it they are done. But what intrigues me is why they would allow other competitors to step up in a segment they dominate? They could raise the prices for the consumers if they are not worried about competition...
Well as a consumer, I certainly hope so but I think that these companies did this case because their have been times they were -55% in stock prices and its just cash making money device at this point and there is a monopoly of fabs with just three key players.
So the answer to your question is "money" and "more money" short term. Their stock prices are already up I think and a company really loves short term rising stock prices
> They could raise the prices for the consumers if they are not worried about competition
Well, would you increase the prices 3-4x? Because supposedly thats how much the AI chips from what I've heard are... And due to this, the second hand market itself is selling these at a close-enough mark.
I don't know but I hope that new players come in the market, I didn't know that this ram industry was such monopolistic with there being only 3 key players and how that became a chokehold for the whole world economy in a way
> Well, would you increase the prices 3-4x?
(Text below is quite long, let me say it here, you made great points in your answer!)
It seems they could. They not only single handed caused it to double or more without trying :/
Not sure if it would trigger other sorts of regulatory issues though
It is my impression that there is a fabricated scarcity of all goods.
That's a common practice in cloth retailers. In the 90s they thought for brand name and market share.
They noticed it was silly because they could sell half for double of the price and as this means less logistics, it also meant higher margins.
It is not a lunch free approach. Selling less means that you delegate at least the bottom portion of your clients to the market, and if there are options, they might just be gone.
That's exactly what happened with Chevrolet, Ford, etc. they stopped investing and when a new competitor appeared, even if it was more marketing than product, they lots rivers of money and barely can keep the fight on (except for maybe making a puppet tell others that there is no such thing as climate change, but that's something else)
Technology space right now looks like it. We already see major brands stagnation allegedly because they did all that is possible and it will take some time until some nouvelle approach to appear.
As a consumer, I want to believe this won't take long to settle but I'm afraid money is going elsewhere
Building a dedicated AI-focused consumer line is risky: long development cycles, uncertain demand, and the chance that today's hype cools before the product ships
reply