In so far as comparing levels of complexity, you're correct. But that's not the salient part of the the parent comment.

A tool with a vaguely defined goals and no stakeholders is easier to make than a tool that must meet certain goals as defined by stakeholders.

I'd disagree. Just like how no one needs to find an engine usable, no one needs to find a game fun. My personal itch.io account is full of games no one finds fun :)

Issue isn't about game devs it's about non-game devs backseat programming.

If you spend a week in these engines you're well aware of the garbage collector.

It seems contradictory to move to new and rare technologies with clear customer outcomes.

Would it be wrong to say the advice is to hype chase, lean into new stuff and bail quickly when it's not working out? They hand wave away hype chasing by saying it's for the customer but I'm not sure that really changes things.

At least the advice about how the goal is to serve the customer not the tech is good.

I mean, we have had the tech to crank out some little app for a long time. The point of the Saas used to be that you had a neck to strangle when things went south. I guess these days that's just impossible anyhow and the prices aren't worth it so we're rediscovering that software can be made instead of bought?

There have been a lot of little blogs about "home cooking" style apps that you make for yourself. Maybe AI is the microwave meal version.

You should go read it and see if you can tell me a way I could improve it. I felt I gave actionable advice, but I’m always happy to know if I could have said things better.

Looking at the comment, I would argue that it's fairly vague. Maybe it's clear if you have done it but not clear to others type thing.

Then you undercut the advice by adding "I've always wondered if <confident suggestion> would work", making it unclear how much of the advice is a shot in the dark and how much you've actually seen results from that advice.

Claims like "you might even one shot it" also make it seem like simple hype and not the war story of someone who's actually taken the advice.

But you know, people are down voting me for engaging with your question as well so I don't know. Maybe it's all bots these days :p

You could improve it by simply doing the thing you describe and linking to it.

Ehhhh....

Is an AI driven feed not UI changes? Those are incredibly successful but the buttons change every refresh.

UIs do not need to be static. The key is that there is a coherent pattern to what's changing.

When you look at it through that lens it doesn't seem so exotic.

UIs definitely need to be static as people eventually build muscle memory

I'm not sure any realistic definition of free market would mean your actions are free from consequence.

The global market is anarchy in the literal sense and no one is bound by a higher authority. Coercion and cartels are part of a free market.

Economic efficiency actually requires a lot of rules and regulations to achieve the free market playground we like to imagine.

David Graeber in three lines

Cartels aren't part of a free market, wtf

Nah, it is simply just not free market. USA is actively and systematically acting against free market .

Well, when was it last free? A few millena ago?

China did not let US companies establish completely foreigner subsidiaries, yet the US granted it MFN status.

However, the US had protective tariffs since ever too.

Not to mention the controls on migration and remote work (which is a very significant drag on economic growth, as it prevents more efficient allocation of labor).

Isn't "process improvement" just solving other people's problems?

Seems like it got hand waived by but it's the crux of the situation, no?

As the manager is accountable for the problem being solved, they are responsible for making sure processes are optimal.

There definitely should be an onus on individuals and teams to reflect and generate their own improvement actions to that end. Scrum Retros are a good example of this. In this case, the manager is responsible for process improvement by chairing the retro, ensuring that the team has the info needed, and has the space to implement actions. Scrum Masters chairing retros can be seen as a form of coaching.

There are also times when process improvement means directly stepping in and directing the team to do something differently. This can happen for lots of reasons; one example may be a manager taking over an existing team under fire and identifying immediate changes needed to dig them out. I've seen several teams with entrenched mindsets in this situation where process improvement is directed rather than discovered.

Ideally, the team drives it, while the manager is responsible for ensuring it happens successfully.

E.g. there is a big difference between "Why did we loose a day here, what can we learn?" vs "From now on each dev needs to review every pull request twice per-day". Might be the same ultimate action, but in the latter the manager is solving the issue directly.

They mean procedural like Diablo is procedure.

You could always make cinema quality environments in a traditional pipeline and render the splats offline for later realtime consumption.