It’s because they go hand in hand. I’ve had experience with customer service roles where staff are empowered to solve issues and it requires very very very slightly higher investment in your employees to pull off.

All you’re arguing is that the web is decentralised, not that any given website within it is.

YouTube music seems to hit a perfect blend of stuff you know and stuff you don’t.

YouTube music pays artists slightly less badly than most services fwiw.

I bought both of mine. For next to nothing from a charity shop. Also they’re TVs.

Also what’s with the third person, who else is there with you calling the shots?

It was you. You were there and you knew from day one. Lots of allegations were directed at you, specifically. What is happening.

Of course he didn’t write it.

Huh?

I suspect that all the not Linus people were already working towards publishing a response like this to the Gamer’s Nexus video when Linus ran off wildcarding again and they then decided to rush out a video so they could clearly state that Linus’s response only represented Linus’s knee-jerk response and was not supported by or representative of LTT/LMG’s take. So… It really really sucks that they responded to a situation created by them rushing and being sloppy by rushing and being sloppy but it may well be that if Linus had been kept under control they wouldn’t have and keeping Linus under control seems to be a big part of their strategy going forwards. I guess my point is it’s too early to judge whether the shift in internal power dynamics at LTT/LMG, refocusing their priorities and reducing their rate of output will actually solve the issues or not.

I think I heard that (and the jokes about the CFO being the “sponsor”) had been trimmed out of the video (which I haven’t checked.) The first time I saw it (just about an hour after posting) it was still included and you could still see the value that Billet labs was giving for their prototype was still unblurred and there was a comment from the head of labs about how they were going to post some sort of transparency video behind a paywall (on Floatplane.) When I rewatched later that day (to show someone) they had blurred out the value, they still had the jokes about selling stuff. I’m not honestly sure if they still had the thing about the plan for the paywalled transparency video. Later I saw a short reaction video to the drama that claimed all of those elements had now been removed from the LTT video.

I really doubt this post is by Linus directly. It’s been about two days since the brand new CEO and the rest of the c-suite informed Linus that any communication he makes regarding stuff like this has to go through them now.

Tbf the current CEO has been there less than two months not two years.

Yet the solution is so simple. Let the them spend 20 – 35 % of their paid time on backlog. Let them refactor the architecture. Let them improve the code base. You know, that thing the Lean book talks about, the part that everyone overlooks, the part so critical yet so often overlooked that others wrote books that ride that one aspect home.

But why do that when instead you can just pretend those issues don’t exist (or simply fail to understand them) and secure a bonus/promotion/personal favour by cutting “unnessecary” labour costs then celebrate by burbling on about how capitalism “maximises efficiency”.

There’s something wrong with people who are so out of their depth like that who don’t just find and hire someone more competent to do this stuff for them. Either just a complete lack of awareness that they are floundering or some weird stubbornness that it’s only worth succeeding if they are personally holding the tiller.

I think part of the issue was that there needed to be a well promoted off-site hub for discussion and coordination established before action was taken.

I dunno. I think if the response has been a bit enough threat to their long-term goals they could have easily just walked back a bit by changing the pricing for API access and extending a grace period to developers already using the API.

Yeah, while I understand that there was a loss of customisation and that naturally the existing username tended towards people who likes the older style, I personally absolutely hated it to the point that I just couldn’t get into Reddit at all until the update. It also doesn’t really seem odd to me for a website to update it’s UI once in a while (tbh, I’d be turned off by one that doesn’t. Even the best UI today is still relatively speaking from the bronze age of UX design. If the best we have today is the best we can do I’ll be sorely disappointed.)

But like… Why not have those 2000 employees generate some actual reasonable value if you’re paying them anyway. Reddit externally seems like a business with 200 poorly organised employees. How were they squandering that manpower so spectacularly? Were they doing it on purpose somehow? Like a military unit firing endless rounds at nothing at the end of the year to make sure they don’t get their allocation cut for next year?

I think that’s quite likely yes. But that in and off itself indicates that management consider stuff like UX to be non-essential expertise that sits outside of what is required for a functioning lean operation.

It says in the post:

“realized they should have had automated filters in place to prevent such issues. They are now implementing a two-step automated filtering and flagging system for user handles while still involving human moderators.”

They wouldn’t need to implement a system they already implemented but wasn’t working properly. They’d just be fixing it.

Failing to attempt to design and impliment an important feature at all is not the same as a bug. Unless I’m missing something they aren’t saying “we did have systems in place to prevent people creating accounts with intentionally offensive usernames but we oopsed so it didn’t work as intended until we fixed it.” They’re saying “it either didn’t even occur to us our software needed that or we decided we just don’t care so we didn’t even try to do it until people pointed out that we were missing this important thing at which point we started working on it.”

So, either they somehow just missed that this is something they need (which they really shouldn’t have and suggests they aren’t thinking even slightly about user conduct on their platform) or they did and decided they wanted to see if they could get away with just not doing it.

I understand it’s easy to get lost in the core functionality of making the thing go but you can’t lose sight of the actual intended outcome like this.

Yeah, it seems like people made the internet something valuable, a bunch of commercial businesses turned up to take the reins so they could harvest hat value for wealth for investors, it’s reached a point where that juice is no longer worth the squeeze for them and we’ll go back to a phase where the progress and generation of value will revert back to regular people again for a while. Likely that balance will then tip back towards profitability again and the cycle will start anew.