You are way too nice with the author, if I were you I’d omit the fake empathy which dilutes your substantial points. The author is hallucinating worse than AI.
So what if other people downvote you for being too critical.
ha I honestly don't have that strong of an opinion of the author because the few tidbits I've seen I didn't even read all the way because the info on the surface was so flawed. this was the first article I've actually read. so I can't say they're malicious or hallucinating because I haven't looked into why they have the opinions they do. but I'm definitely not inclined to trust them, which was why I had to say that I've recognized the pattern of "Noah Smith" (I don't know who they are, where they work, nothing) seems to just ship out their own copy/paste of whatever trendy (and flawed) opinion is hot at the moment
There are a ton of them already in game dev but they produce unfun games so you don’t hear about them. The hard part of game dev is designing actually fun experiences.
Well-put. Sw eng is so much better, assuming you are comfortable in the role, for types who want to punch a clock doing something they don't hate.
Sales is the definition of high-pressure, and your output is always threatened by forces beyond your control. It doesn't consistently reward intelligence or any particular skill other than hustle.
There's nothing like sw dev that lets you sit at your desk and ignore the outside world while getting paid for delivering biz-critical milestones. Even creatives don't have this kind of potential autonomy.
Not quite my area of expertise but I can venture a guess. It's not large enterprise deals, that's a bit too random and narrow minded. Large software companies care more about their position in market (market share).
At the end of the day businesses build money machines that you put money in and you take money out from various markets. You need legibility if you want to tie all development work to how it affects how much of the market you own. And it's not quite legibility that is needed, it's accurate future market share prediction, which requires a particularly strategic form of legibility. The only way to increase market share without luck is to accurately forecast what your actions will do to your market share. But how can you do that if you have no idea what your devs are building and shipping?
We tend to make fun of incompetent business people but this is what the competent ones are doing - being super accurate in their forecast of future revenue, and forcing devs to build things that will help gain market share.
Devs often don't think about business strategy enough (as evidenced by the original article, no offense). So they aren't usually good at tying everything they do back to gaining market share. Devs who are the market audience for their app can be naturally good at PMF and going from 0 to 1, but as you scale its very hard to find devs that are also the market audience of the product they are building, so they tend to be bad at predicting how their dev roadmap will affect market share gain.
Without legibility, a team of devs can be a slot machine where you pull the lever and hope the features hit the jackpot or at least a modest return and not duds. With small bets, that's a great way to become large, but its no way to run a competitive large business.
In the comments it reveals this guy is using the sharpener wrong by doing way too many pulls with too much pressure.
The cheap ikea one is fine, it will not wear out your blade. 2-3 pulls at very light pressure, no need to learn how to use a whetstone properly, perfect UX for those who don’t typically sharpen knives.
