This is how I learn that they shutdown the awards for Kiro usage.
But more seriously, while this is worded as a result of abuse, it had been up for more than a year at this point as a way to push people to use Kiro (you get badges for each "level" basically). Once you reach a point where everyone is using those tools, it makes no sense to keep it around.
Also it was not related to any performance metric, it was a pure vanity thing of getting virtual awards to display.
Yes. I've seen the AI usage patterns from people at the top of these kind of leaderboards, they understand that they are not doing things that they expect to produce commensurate value. At best they've inferred (sometimes correctly!) that the existence of the leaderboard means leadership has decided it's OK to burn prodigous amounts of token on any experimental thing one can imagine that might be useful.
> Do you think ai usage will decrease due to this change ?
Frivolous usage sure, internally at Amazon there is a subculture (if you can call it that) of award chasers. Using Kiro for mundane task to burn tokens does not sound that far-fetched.
Overall usage though no I don't think so, these tools have some pretty wide adoption at this point and not by people chasing awards.
Perhaps not a monster, but in "It takes two", there is a particular scene where you have to murder a friendly stuffed elephant to get your in-game daughter to cry.
I have been playing video games for decades at this point but that one really shook me up. You pretty much execute a toy begging for its life. As soon as that scene was over it genuinely took me a few days to come back to it.
Long time gamer here too and this also really got me. I'm not sure exactly what it was; perhaps a turn to a darker tone where I wasn't expecting it. For all the interpersonal disagreements the game is generally 'whimsical.' It was the desperation of the elephant that really got me ... the bargaining, the confusion.
I find that as I get older I respond more to media like this. I'm not sure if it's emotional intelligence, being more present, or something else.
I’m apparently a heartless monster or something, but that elicited less than zero for me. I wanted it to end because the squeeky annoying voice and over the top cuteness was for effect.
I’m happy for you that you felt that was dark. Well, IDK, maybe I’m happy for you, hard to say.
As a child in the 1970s I visited family there and my memory is that it seemed like every adult and older teen smoked. Often filterless. So it's quite a change in a few decades.
Perhaps that's location dependent. I was just there and was taken aback by how many more people I saw smoking than where I live in the US. Still not as much as southern or eastern Europe, but more than the large US city nearest me.
Maybe, but I have trouble with the framing. Referendum votes are >50%. If a foreign nation can get >50% of the Albertans to agree to something, that's still democracy.
Yes it feels wrong for the US to be giving money to influencers to influence the vote, but it's not like those voters are being coerced. In their opinion, Alberta would be better as a separate country.
Whether that opinion is enlightened or not has no bearing on it being democratic or not.
A foreign adversary only has to convince or “add” the difference needed to reach 50%. It never starts at 0.
I can’t blanket agree that “it’s their opinion after all” because fraud works the same way. The victim willingly triggers their own loss but after being deceived. Brexit shows the works, almost half the supporters feel like they got the bait and switch, being promised one thing and then getting another. But this fraud you’ll never be able to punish and deter because the foreign party is not under your control. So why allow any avenue for it to make a difference?
> The victim willingly triggers their own loss but after being deceived
So wrapping up the process in another layer of "informed individuals" is another form of government that is even easier to manipulate, because there are fewer of them.
There is no self-protection or those who are incidentally manipulated by forgoing their own responsibility. ie Manufactured Consent. This sentiment (albeit articulated differently) is why wealth inequality has become such a hot topic in the US. It's blatant that if it's many or few, it makes little difference within US politics. Billionaires can afford the influence to make the decisions. That's the game.
There will always be undue influence but you have to draw the line somewhere. Foreign influence is generally inarguably worse, the foreign party has absolutely no duty whatsoever to your country or your people, maybe benefits if everyone is worse off. And when it’s a major power it’s also fully shielded from real consequences.
If you are going to draw that line, foreign vs. domestic is a good place to do it.
Alternatively you give everyone a free mulligan and if they decide to start with <3 lands in their hand or no mana ramp that's on them.
My issue with guaranteed lands is that they remove the randomness of some lands. I am not guaranteed to get my "no maximum hand size" land and my rogue passage to make my creature unblockable in a typical game of commander. I have to plan for it by using stuff like expedition map.
Drafting last Friday, my first hand was zero lands, my second hand was one land, my third hand (bottoming two) had three lands. However, I then kept drawing four-drop spells and no more lands for 8 turns.
So is it "on me?" Or is it just that the game just is high variance?
Free mulligan means on your third hand you would only bottom 1, not 2.
Besides, with a 37 lands commander deck, the chances that in 4 hands (if your limit is bottoming 2, 5 cards in hand) starts getting low. Around 1 in 10 and that's ignoring mana rocks (2 lands + 1 mana rock) which probably brings it much closer to 1 in 14+.
If you add the chances of more than 4 lands (also fairly undesirable) your odds of a bad forced hand climb to 1 in 7, which is still pretty far from the 50% chance the original post is talking about.
Without the free mulligan you would be at 1 in 4, which is why I said free mulligan is the way to go.
> selling this at $15/hour/user??? That math does not math. A quick google says there are between 1.5 and 4.4 million developers in the US alone, let's say it's 5 million, to be generous, and each of them is subbed to this for 8 hours per day, continuously. That's 600 million per year in revenue
That math is not mathing. $15/hour/user, with 5M devs, 8hrs and 240 working days per year that is 144B in revenue.
What exactly should the author have done differently? It's part of the leadership roles to understand the power structures within your organization. Reading between the lines, a new team was thrusted onto an arguably functioning sub-org to address concerns that they had not themselves raised. Then the expectation was for that sub-org to take a hit on their KPIs to onboard to the new teams platform.
It's not "tribal" to refuse to do something that is misaligned with all your explicit incentives. Otherwise we'd have to pay lip service to every internal tooling team just because they exist. It's the leadership team's job to keep pushing if they strongly believe the sub-org leader is acting in bad faith.
The best managers I've seen would turn this situation into a headcount request.
The problem is leadership has priorities 1-5. Your team works on 1-3, but the PM keeps getting hassled about 4 and 5, so they look for levers to get them to happen.
In this situation, the PM scrounged up headcount from elsewhere, but if you present the option of adding headcount to the existing team, then you create a more harmonious option of getting these lower priorities accomplished.
Of course, this guy was taken fully by surprise by the suggestion. It's much harder to present a better option after the fact, and I agree that letting leadership feel the consequences of its decisions is a reasonable thing to do in this case.
> What exactly should the author have done differently?
Work with the other engineering manager.
This person was angry about the team's appearance, but the other engineering manager who assembled the team is barely a side note in the document.
The way you deal with these situations is by working with the other managers involved and propose better solutions.
This is a weird blog post because it's supposedly from someone in a high up engineering manager position, but it's written with a political awareness that I'd expect from someone who had never managed before or who was a first-time manager without good mentorship.
They had better solution and used it. You cant "work with" people who are not working with you in the first place.
This was not a cooperative situation. Trying to cooperate in this situation will make you walked all over and also will make you the one to be blamed when it fails.
What about expecting them to suck up their pride, work with the other lead for a comprehensive plan that includes possible WONTFIX-es?
Strategy and leadership don’t come to exist on their own. It’s middle management that has the best operational and tactical view bear none. Use that to influence decision making instead of complaining. (Yes, this is a theme in my professional life. Our middle managers don’t know their own worth. Pretty please give me Plans about what you Want to Deliver. Those are so much better than general strategies.)
For me the next step should explore how to cut out the firing part of the process altogether, pottery looks cool but the process requires a lot of energy. Perhaps it could be done on a piece of wood planed by hand? You can get those fairly flat. Then use copper tape (or laminate your own copper really) with some homemade adhesive?
Actually now that I think about it you could just make pine rosin (pine resin + alcohol) as your adhesive. For the copper laminate this might be harder without steel rollers or a way to cut.
Amusing historical note, that's where the word "breadboard" came from. Wooden cutting boards were readily available, and people would make circuits by screwing down tube sockets and other components.
Bah the other wheels usually die of natural causes if you wait a bit.
I am a big believer in Amazon's "1 > 2 > 0" for "one perfect solution is better than two, but both are much better than no solutions". It's also misunderstanding how Amazon works. If you want to move fast, you can't wait for an SVP 6 levels above you to approve every effort. Instead you build something and then you run it up the chain to have it be adopted at team/org-level.
But more seriously, while this is worded as a result of abuse, it had been up for more than a year at this point as a way to push people to use Kiro (you get badges for each "level" basically). Once you reach a point where everyone is using those tools, it makes no sense to keep it around.
Also it was not related to any performance metric, it was a pure vanity thing of getting virtual awards to display.
reply