The bottleneck at larger orgs is mostly always decision-making.
Getting code written and reviewed is the trivial part of the job in most cases, discovering the product needs, considering/uncovering edge-cases, defining business logic that is extensible or easily modifiable when conditions change, etc. are the parts that consume 80% of my time.
We in the engineering org at the company I work for have raised this flag many times during adoption of AI-assisting tools, now that the rollout is deeply in progress with most developers using the tools, changing workflows, it has become the sore thumb sticking out: yes, we can deliver more code if it's needed but for what exactly do you need it?
So far I haven't seen a speed up in decision-making, the same chain of approvals, prioritisation, definitions chugs along as it was and it is clearly the bottleneck.
I think that yes, it's a lack of empathy stemming from the belief that everything can ultimately be distilled into personal responsibility.
In reality we are not so much in control, our psyche is easily manipulated by nudges, design that leaves you on the cusp of a dopaminic reaction is much more addictive. It's different to develop a vice to being manipulated into developing a vice. Morality should come into play on the latter, otherwise it's a free-for-all to discover the most effective ways to manipulate you into behaviours that are unhealthy but profitable.
> The Nazi took members of ethnic minorities and put them into death camps and massacred them in horrible ways.
It was a process over almost 10 years to get to that. Before they were rounding up people to be deported, when it became an issue too large to process deportations the labour camps were next, so on and so forth until gas chambers and industrial murder became the final solution.
If you think the parallel is ridiculous, think again.
A lot, the period from National Romanticism onward is the most relevant for any form of study of a "nation".
Before that you could only think in terms of loosely connected realms/kingdoms, before more in terms of tribes and some city-states. Those aren't that useful to study to understand the present, from the 17th century is where most of the current culture branched out from.
The historical connection to the land from the people/tribes living in territories of modern Europe from before the Middle Ages is more akin to studying Native Americans in the USA, they were the people inhabiting the land, they had their traditions, and some of those traditions were used to forge the national identity of present cultures but there's a lot of this national identity that was myth-making by National Romantics to generate a sense of unity needed for creating the nation and nation-states.
He wants to focus on community building (as stated in the letter), wouldn't you say that communities in developed countries have been hollowed out? It's also one of the most important aspects of humanity, we are community builders first, that's how we always survived.
Being atomised hasn't improved how meaningful our lives are even though we created a lot of technology going that way. Can you say we have more meaning in life by being splitted apart? We have lots of entertainment and things to keep us busy but for a lot of people gratification comes from doing things together.
As a personal anecdote: I've personally enjoyed much more my times during summer helping a community of friends to build houses in their land than any time I was just travelling around. I pass by their houses every few weeks, have dinner with them here and there, and feel extremely happy to see those people living in structures I helped to build together with them. It's much more meaningful to me than any software I helped to develop used by literal hundreds of millions of people.
The lack of community untethers people from being humans, you can clearly see that in anyone that is chronically online.
I think it's a general misunderstanding of Americans about other law systems, the American way of codifying laws leaves a lot of loopholes (intentionally or unintentionally) due to it being a game to be played, the spirit of the law is second to the letter of the law. They expect precise and well-defined constraints in the letter of the law.
Most European countries, and the EU as a legislative body, work with the premise of the spirit of the law. It is less precise and requires real world judgment to determine its boundaries but it can be much harder to side-step with technicalities and "gotchas" using loopholes in the letter of the law.
It's just a different system, in my opinion it's less exploitable even though it's riskier. I prefer the spirit of the law to be defended instead of a whole system of gaming technicalities, really don't like the whole vibe of playing Munchkin the USA has in its legal system. Makes some good legal drama though.
> ... Accordingly, the mission of HonestReporting is to ensure truth, integrity and fairness, and to combat ideological prejudice in journalism and the media, as it impacts Israel.
The name seems to be a red herring, their mission statement is to protect Israel.
> According to a 2025 report by fact-checking site Misbar, many members of HonestReporting's staff have links to the Israeli government and military, and several previously worked in pro-Israel advocacy or served in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).[4]
> In December 2024, Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar held a meeting with prominent figures from hasbara organizations, among them HonestReporting, announcing $150 million in funding to support their global outreach efforts.[21][4][22]
Clues that it is a pro-Israel mouthpiece. So Al-Jazeera vs HonestReporting cancels out?
Also from Wikipedia:
> In November 2023, HonestReporting published an article questioning whether Palestinian photojournalists had tipped off the Associated Press, Reuters, The New York Times and CNN prior to the October 7 attacks. The report led two Israeli politicians to threaten that these journalists be killed,[34] while the Israeli Prime Minister's office said the journalists were "accomplices in crimes against humanity".[35]
> On November 10, 2023, HonestReporting's director said he accepted that the media groups had no advance knowledge of the October 7 Hamas attacks on Israel.[1]
>> ... Accordingly, the mission of HonestReporting is to ensure truth, integrity and fairness, and to combat ideological prejudice in journalism and the media, as it impacts Israel.
> The name seems to be a red herring, their mission statement is to protect Israel.
Even according to your quote, your rephrasing is inaccurate.
How is it inaccurate? Do you believe they would openly state "our mission is to protect Israel"? They have to use weasel words but in effect is the same: they will combat "ideological prejudice" which requires them to define "ideological prejudice" for their means and since it's combined with "as it impacts Israel" it's basically just weaseling the statement "we will protect Israel".
> My company tried this, then quickly stopped: $$$
How much were devs spending to become a sticking point?
I'm asking because I thought it'd be extremely expensive when it rolled out at the company I work for, we have dashboards tracking expenses averaged per dev in each org layer, the most expensive usage is about US$ 350/month/dev, the average hovers around US$ 30-50.
Reflecting X-rays is exactly what's needed for EUV litography, Hiroo Kinoshita had to fight quite a bit to have his research taken seriously back in the days but it's the foundation to how EUV lithography works.
Getting code written and reviewed is the trivial part of the job in most cases, discovering the product needs, considering/uncovering edge-cases, defining business logic that is extensible or easily modifiable when conditions change, etc. are the parts that consume 80% of my time.
We in the engineering org at the company I work for have raised this flag many times during adoption of AI-assisting tools, now that the rollout is deeply in progress with most developers using the tools, changing workflows, it has become the sore thumb sticking out: yes, we can deliver more code if it's needed but for what exactly do you need it?
So far I haven't seen a speed up in decision-making, the same chain of approvals, prioritisation, definitions chugs along as it was and it is clearly the bottleneck.
reply