To me it’s more like being a super micro-managing TL that would annoy the hell out of their human reports. It comes with all the pros and cons of micro-management.

I wonder from time to time whether you can decide the best “schema shape” beforehand, ie before you can run real workloads that stress the memory implications of such things. This can be very useful if you are trying to decide the boundary of some public facing API, but for whatever reason can’t run benchmarks (lack of impl, data, time, etc).

Without that, if you try to suggest a transformation like this when the schema is first conceived, it will likely be considered premature optimization.

This tells me a real developer wrote the docs, instead of someone with good English writing skills but is less technical.

> they could have even used their own LLM to edit their documentation to fix grammar issues

In my experience companies who do this rarely stop at using LLMs to fix grammar issues. It becomes full on LLM speak quite fast, especially if there isn’t a native English speaker in the room who can discern what’s good and bad writing.

Ha, probably nobody at Google even knows the exact cost of each of those business lines.

Yep - It's nearly impossible to assign profit to those things - we have X revenue from Android licenses, what's the cost of an android license? Is it all the R&D that goes to UI or hardware research? What's the cost of a Youtube Ad?

I’d even argue that most things operated by tech doesn’t need 24x7x365 availability. If it’s about life-and-death, then yes make it super reliable and available. Otherwise, bring back scheduled downtime please.

I’ve always thought about this as more of a meme than a serious point. Trivially, aren’t most of the network protocol RFCs “sufficiently comprehensive spec that isn’t code”?

This is probably the least important bad thing you could say about Altman.

Also why is a low effort commentary piece of the NYT article on the HN front page?

It’s what the cool kids are doing these days. It’ll pass. Also it’s quite fun to build things around agents and watch them go off to work.

I think there's also something about being able to make it exactly how you want. For example I didn't like openclaw, I felt it was extremely over-engineered and I honestly couldn't even get it running on my first attempt. So I made botctl to be a generalized version where it doesn't rely on complex setup and have every bell and whistle, you just install it, create a directory with a BOT.md file and off it goes.

ARK was all the rage around early pandemic time when wallstreetbets was in the news a lot. Most people probably know it from then.

Weird that this needs to be said. I’m not familiar with the Go ecosystem, but there is usually a natural incentive for library developers to reach more people, which means you’d want to support the oldest feasible version. If you don’t do that then someone will develop a better library which does support an older version. Is that not happening here?

What the article does not say is that if you don't have a recent enough version, by default, Go automatically downloads a more recent toolchain. So, for most users, this is transparent.

However, this behavior can be disabled (for example, when building for a Linux distribution).