Some people like brutalist architecture.

I think is so ugly that I'm half tempted to chatgpt fact check this comment. It very well could have been a deliberate conspiracy to lie to the public and say it looks good to make some austerity go down easier.

I hate brutalist architecture, but love the Win2K design language, for what should be fairly obvious reasons. I interact with software. I don't interact with architecture beyond the visuals. It can look as shit as it wants, but if it gets out of my way and lets me do what I want to do, then it's great. It'd be nice if it look better, but I'll take function over form 10/10 times.

The only reason brutalist buildings were made in that style is because it's cheap(er), and because some architects started to smell their own farts a bit too much. Win9X/Win2K were made the way they are because it's actually conducive to get shit done.

Making the UI grey seems just as conducive to productivity as the raw concrete walls on a brutalist office building.

If you were to quiz people who preferred the Windows 2000 look, you would more likely get detailed answers regarding the design language and functionality. If you were to quiz people who preferred the XP look, you would more likely get answers revolving around colors and shiny.

The act of shooting the pitbull makes for good dramatics, but you would get zero sympathy from me if your local government banned pitbull ownership. e.g. Ontario bans pitbulls. I don't have a problem with that.

You don't need/use pitbulls, but what if you (and many many others) wanted and needed Fable?

I for one was late to the bandwagon, and when I had the use-case for it - the govt pulled the rug. So yeah, I'm a bit salty about the whole endeavour.

I will also say that the security concerns are probably very real (and they have been from the day ChatGPT-3.5 came our). I guess I can be salty about it and still be wrong from their perspective. The govt likely understands the fragility of their infrastructure better than us and is likely aware what this could unleash for their systems.

Because it was the basis for the analogy: breed-based dog bans are idiotic, given mixed genetics, temperament, and training.

Said as the owner of a pitbull, who is the sweetest and gentlest dog I've owned. And I've had multiple labradors.

What do combat sports have to do with anything?

Correctly punctuated it's "combat" "sports" being neither combat nor a sport.

A generous response

The intro lobbed up a clear cut point of contention for the article to address. I found the following writing to loose steam on that point. I turned to skimming, and did not manage to find a conclusion.

I suspect the stance they described as one readers mistakenly took away from their previous article to in fact be their stance. Otherwise why dance around it so hard?

I call meetings to force others to think about the contents of an email for more than 2 minutes.

I won't say there are zero times where face to face conversation is beneficial. But forcing someone to not be distracted by "multitasking" while they work through their inbox, is not one of them.

This is such an optimistic article ignoring the problem. There is downward pressure to reduce the rigorousness of pull requests.

More static checking and AI analysis of changes are good things, everything else being equal. But they're not sufficient to offset the additional review demands of AI pull requests.

> This layered model keeps PRs moving without lowering standards.

> Accountability stays with the human. But the human review becomes more about judgment and less about mechanical inspection when baseline checks are already handled.

> But as AI generates more of the code, the industry will likely move toward more radical review models.

Quit dancing around it and just advocate pushing to main. The PR model is to have a quality gate. If review throughput is seen a bottleneck, don't saddle people with accountability for changes they're pressured to let through.

In teams where there is downward pressure to reduce the rigorousness of PRs there shouldn't be much of a bottleneck problem. They've solved it by lowering the bar. The article is for the teams who have decided the bug and incident cost of doing that isn't worth it, and now have to absorb the volume anyway.

>But as AI generates more of the code, the industry will likely move toward more radical review models.

>>Quit dancing around it and just advocate pushing to main. The PR model is to have a quality gate.

The dancing is IMO a reasonable analysis of the state of the code review today. Yes, there are systems in the works but today there isn't yet a good enough system of automated checks to simply let code through. Because then this happens https://pages.faros.ai/hubfs/AI_Engineering_Report_2026_The_...

>“I hope we can rekindle the best of the culture we joined,” Bosworth wrote.

Wasn't it a already a notoriously toxic place to work before the reorg?

It's simpler than that, some people just like sardonic writing. I don't know if I believe Ed any more than some AI cheerleader. But his writing is proper relaxing compared to hype rants that I wouldn't blame someone for suspecting to be coke-fueled.

It's simple. Noise based nuisances from datacenters fall in one of two categories:

A) don't exist, therefore not a concern

B) known to exist, therefore not a concern