←back to thread

492 points Lionga | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
ceejayoz ◴[] No.45672187[source]
Because the AI works so well, or because it doesn't?

> ”By reducing the size of our team, fewer conversations will be required to make a decision, and each person will be more load-bearing and have more scope and impact,” Wang writes in a memo seen by Axios.

That's kinda wild. I'm kinda shocked they put it in writing.

replies(34): >>45672233 #>>45672238 #>>45672266 #>>45672367 #>>45672370 #>>45672398 #>>45672463 #>>45672519 #>>45672571 #>>45672592 #>>45672666 #>>45672709 #>>45672722 #>>45672855 #>>45672862 #>>45672949 #>>45673049 #>>45673060 #>>45673501 #>>45673549 #>>45673723 #>>45673795 #>>45674537 #>>45674817 #>>45674914 #>>45675187 #>>45675194 #>>45675426 #>>45675612 #>>45676161 #>>45676264 #>>45676418 #>>45676920 #>>45678165 #
dekhn ◴[] No.45673060[source]
I'm seeing a lot of frustration at the leadership level about product velocity- and much of the frustration is pointed at internal gatekeepers who mainly seem to say no to product releases.

My leadership is currently promoting "better to ask forgiveness", or put another way: "a bias towards action". There are definitely limits on this, but it's been helpful when dealing with various internal negotiations. I don't spend as much time looking to "align with stakeholders", I just go ahead and do things my decades of experience have taught me are the right paths (while also using my experience to know when I can't just push things through).

replies(8): >>45673157 #>>45673217 #>>45673223 #>>45673278 #>>45675276 #>>45675476 #>>45675842 #>>45678613 #
JTbane ◴[] No.45673157[source]
> My leadership is currently promoting "better to ask forgiveness", or put another way: "a bias towards action"

lol, that works well until a big issue occurs in production

replies(5): >>45673254 #>>45673369 #>>45674938 #>>45675164 #>>45675983 #
hkt ◴[] No.45673254[source]
Many companies will roll out to slices of production and monitor error rates. It is part of SRE and I would eat my hat if that wasn't the case here.
replies(2): >>45673366 #>>45673418 #
1. crabbone ◴[] No.45673418{3}[source]
The big events that shatter everything to smithereens aren't that common or really dangerous: most of the time you can lose something, revert and move on from such an event.

The real unmitigated danger of unchecked push to production is the velocity with which this generates technical debt. Shipping something implicitly promises the user that that feature will live on for some time, and that removal will be gradual and may require substitute or compensation. So, if you keep shipping half-baked product over and over, you'll be drowning in features that you wish you never shipped, and your support team will be overloaded, and, eventually, the product will become such a mess that developing it further will become too expensive or just too difficult, and then you'll have to spend a lot of money and time doing it all over... and it's also possible you won't have that much money and time.