His learnings from 14 years at Google. Surely we've all learned things working for employers or with engineers that don't do a thing well.
In 14 years he probably also experienced great engineers come and go and start other successful businesses they very likely did not run exactly like Google.
Hard agree, from practical experience also. One thing will push you towards shadow dom (slots, for example) then ten things will push you back towards light dom. I don't exactly understand what the spec is aiming to solve with the way things currently are. But I do appreciate no build process.
Maybe with a shitty boss and a complacent environment. Help them not squint at it and make a gut decision. Why not instead ensure the objective of the report is clear, there's a meaningful target around which to hinge on a decision, and present the data in a way that helps make the decision? And in lieu of the time or resources to do that, work on those problems?
Execs can't do this themselves because they don't have the information they need, and are trying to be predictable and compete in a market. So think about it as an ELI5 exercise where you're infantilizing up, or as it's more commonly and professionally referred to, managing up, or more plainly, helping the business make better decisions.
Or building things that help retain current customers vs acquire new customers so sales has something to sell.
The bigger problem as I've seen it is engineers that don't see themselves as part of the business, either because of the culture or personal choice around lack of focus on soft skills.
All too often engineers spend zero time understanding the market and customers, and scaled agile, as it's typically implemented and managed, definitely doesn't help.
Upper funnel/lower funnel, depending. And don't forget the future employees that take notice of a culture that would allow for such an exercise. To me, it communicates good product management, roadmaps, and healthy financials to allow the room to breathe.
You're making a lot of statements across all your comments that are not backed up and easily disproven, and you double down with more of the same so it's not particularly valuable to engage.
I think with a little critical thinking you can take your "the only" or "is about" statements and ask yourself if you can think of exceptions. You can, and easily.
Chicken and the egg. You can't really make people not want cars without better alternatives, which requires investments that aren't being made.
I want a car, because I need a car. But put in a few bullet trains and offshoots, a business model for vehicles that enables access to a $100/month consumer fleet of shared vehicles so I can grab a truck, minivan, whatever as needed, and I will happily skip ownership.
What is it? I opened it up but it kinda throws you right in. Lots of recordings about being lonely. Is that what it's for, or was that some kind of prompt? Is it a mental health platform? Or is it meant to be more general, like a Twitter/Reddit but audio only?
Imagine this take on something like an enterprise SLA, that helps me reason about how at an individual level it feels nonsensical but at the parent level there are a bunch of upstream levers available to meet those SLAs.
I mean to refer to centralization as a spectrum so I don't intend to say centralization means one option.
What I mean by comparing music streaming to movie streaming is that for all intents and purposes you can feel like your Spotify, YouTube, Amazon, Apple, whatever music libraries are pretty comprehensive, whereas that is absolutely not the case with Netflix, Max, etc.
Hm, okay. I appreciate the dialog, just trying to understand the perspective and I think I do (still disagree, but that's okay).
I thought maybe you'd go in the direction of laws or licenses being used to prohibit advertising in certain contexts, like downstream use of content, but what I'm hearing is that profiting off other's free content is fine, but in your opinion doing so with ads just isn't cool with you. That's reasonable, I just thought maybe your desired solution was more systemic.
Ultimately he's trying to cover his own salary. Would be interesting to know what that salary is, and what the price point would have to be to eliminate the ad revenue completely. As it stands, many balked at a one time cost of $20.