One model I've seen is moving the review stage to the designs, not the code itself.
I.e. have a `planning/designs/unbuilt/...` folder that contains markdown descriptions of features/changes that would have gotten a PR. Now do the review at the design level.
in 2020 we lived through the extreme left's remedial lesson in public safety. Now we're living through the MAGA right's remedial lesson in trade policy.
(Most MAGA right know this, don't care, see tariffs as a hammer. But they are hitting all of us)
I see the value here. The problem isn't just the search; it's the trust. The biggest hurdle for Zenode won't be the tech, but convincing an engineer that your AI's summary of a footnote is accurate enough to risk a $10,000 board spin. That's a high bar.
I'd argue the core value isn't just a better search or a faster reader. It's about providing a verified, reliable source of truth. This brings up a key tension: you say the AI isn't yet at your co-founder's level of accuracy, but is that precisely the level of confidence required to replace an engineer's manual check? How do you close that gap? You've got the data, but the trust factor is a different threshold?
I.e. maybe you've built the tool to make the problem faster, but the real win would be a tool that makes the problem safer? The killer feature might not be more speed, but rather a confidence score on every AI-generated fact, with a clear path to the source document so an engineer can verify it. It’s not about avoiding the document entirely; it’s about having a better starting point and knowing exactly what to double-check.
Searched for "innovator's dilemma" in the article, didn't find it.
The crux is not whether the extremely rich incumbent (google) will have better infrastructure, but whether that is the field of competition that matters.
descriptively: Apple has enough market clout so that it (implicitly) thinks developers will pay the time cost to overcome the lack of documentation and save apple the time it would take to write the documentation. The lever isn't good/bad docs, it's the market dominance apple has in controlling access to high-spend customers.
Similarly, MS was notoriously hard to dev on during MS's period of market dominance. It's a lot more dev-friendly now because it doesn't dominate as much anymore.
I had a terrible time trying to find react performance _monitoring_. There's plenty of performance _troubleshooting_ once you already know what component is slow, but nothing that monitors.
Did I miss something? I see some `measureLifecycleperf` functions in the react source but those look like dead ends.
Even if a worker sells only 10 percent of his or her stock back to the company, that worker agrees to give Mr. Kalanick the voting rights to 100 percent of his or her stock. Each share of Class A stock comes with one shareholder vote, while each share of Class B comes with 10 votes.
Uber had 545.8 million Class A shares at the end of last year, which included 43.4 million employee stock options that had been issued, according to financial statements obtained by The Times. If all of the early employees who owned those options sold even a small part of their stock to Uber, Mr. Kalanick could control the votes of up to 43.4 million shares, or an additional 7.9 percent of that stock class.
Uber also had 459.7 million Class B common shares at the end of 2016, which included 9.9 million employee stock options that had been issued. If all of the holders of those options sold even part of their stock to Uber, Mr. Kalanick could control the votes of up to 9.9 million shares, or an additional 2.2 percent of that stock class.
Mr. Kalanick does not control those votes until he issues something called a “voting notice,” which requires the employee to vote all of his or her remaining stock in accordance with Mr. Kalanick’s wishes on all matters submitted to a vote of stockholders, according to the agreement. If Mr. Kalanick issued such a notice to a Class B shareholder, the stock gets only one vote a share, which goes to Mr. Kalanick.
This is a fantastic start. Yes, angel.co/clear was complicated. I hope you have better luck driving adoption.
What you are charting at the top is the company exit value. But the UI controls enter info tied to the employee. You should chart the employee's exit value.
You should also put the "or not*" controls as totally optional toggles as an exploratory UI. I.e. the user can toggle "preference" and see what it does to their value.
Some of the earliest work that Kahneman and Taversky (think behavioral economics or biases) stumbled upon that told them the brain was filtering/processing unconsciously and incorrectly was hearing focus. Different people would be able to recall strings of numbers played into each ear at varying levels of ability. The better you were at picking up more input streams, the better a bus driver, fighter pilot, or tank captain you would be.
IIRC (8+ years ago), athenahealth was very open with internal data, as part of building an internal culture of honesty and trust. The Exec team walked the walk and showed us very detailed financial info during all-hands.
google, greylock, angellist, athenahealth, and a few other startups most of you haven't heard of because they didn't work out.
twitter.com/ben_mathes