Google Sheets now has an intrusive Gemini pop-up that obscures other cells and UI when you try to do things like edit a formula, it's beyond infuriating and I can feel my blood pressure rise just thinking about it.
The way Gemini (which is incredible) has been haphazardly shoved into gsuite products seems devoid of any kind of common sense. Even very basic obvious things via Gemini in Gmail fail. It’s ironic because it’s the one place I’d love a decent model.
Incredible at some things maybe, but for the average user Gemini is what broke Google Assistant (the article touches on that). Most people use Google Assistant to "do things" like play music, interact with smart switches, etc. Rolling out Gemini as a replacement before it could do these things was always going to be viewed as a regression.
People don't care if it can answer questions with more nuance when the smart stuff they paid hundreds or thousands for no longer works.
I use Assistant to add reminders or stuff to my calendar (saying "Add appointment for 22nd of December at 2pm take sleigh out of garage" is a lot faster than clicking around the calendar UI), a few months ago Gemini couldn't do these things, yesterday it offers to do so after I connect it to the Workspace apps (I'm using civilian Google). But asking it to list my reminders gives me a textual listing in its UI instead of loading the Tasks UI...
Getting a response to "Set alarm for 8am" is still a lot quicker in Assistant than in Gemini.
The weird thing is that other AI systems can route commands to different models. Google should be able to send questions to Gemini and commands to Google Assistant.
I used Google Assistant to call my wife whem I was driving.
Previously it just called her, Gemini asks which one of the numbers I have saved should it call, but not as a continued conversation. It comes up with an onscreen list, which I'm not pressing whilst driving, and trying to tell it which one ends with Gemini getting very confused.
Reverted to Google Assistant which still works and will actually call her.
Reminds me of when Google Plus got “integrated” everywhere, but even worse.
If we take the thing nobody asked for and shove it in users faces as often as possible, this will get lots of happy customers and the product will take off!
Clippy at least had the courtesy of only blocking the bottom right of the window, these ridiculous Gemini pop-ups appear next to whatever cell you have selected and block things like column headers or values that you actually want to look at while editing the formula/value. It's insane to me that this was ever allowed to get deployed without a rational human being calling out the obvious issue.
Dotted line reporting is very different. In these instances the VP/E is usually directly interfacing with other executives as the CTO's peer. This is even more true when the budget is managed by the VP/E and the CTO is more customer/sales facing.
I always thought it was about developer velocity, in this particular case front-end. With a traditional REST API the front-end team needed to coordinate with the back-end team on specific UX features to determine what needed to be done, which was further exasperated when API's needed to be specialized for iPhone vs. Android vs. Web UI.
GraphQL was supposed to help front-end and back-end meet in the middle by letting front-end write specific queries to satisfy specific UX while back-end could still constrain and optimize performance. Front-end could do their work without having to coordinate with back-end, and back-end could focus on more important things than adding fields to some JSON output.
I think it's important to keep this context in mind to appreciate what problem GraphQL is solving.
I think I understand this, possibly nice for huge client x feature matrix. I don’t have XP in the setup where there is a big separate backend team. In my head there is an alternative implementation: have a separate routing layer (coauthored by backend and frontend). Backend responsibility ends with the service layer. There has to be some domain contract implemented somewhere, question is it is simpler to cut down from a tree or build something on top of components.
This is also the motivation that would lead me to advocate for adopting GraphQL for a product. Moreso than a technical decision, it is an organizational decision regarding resource trade-offs, and where the highest iteration or code churn is expected to be located.
So in other words you've got nothing? There is literally nothing in your links that backs up your claims.
So conferences in every western country should also not invite Chinese or Japanese speakers because they hold similar views to DHH? I'm so over this exhausting need to feel self-righteous.
International trade is extremely complex, funding and publicizing a project is not. Framework supports DHH, both financially and in terms of publicity. That's not something I wanna support.
The mental gymnastics and contortions you are putting yourself through are quite stunning. You're finding associations that do not exist. I feel I'm staring at a wall strewn with thumb-tacked red yarn, linking all sorts of nonsense together while the creator steps back and exclaims "see, proof!".
Framework makes hardware and software. If you're going to close yourself off to any product or organization that happens to have some users you disagree with - then you're not going to get very far in this world. This is a wild, and frankly unhealthy perspective to hold.
Please explain which associations I'm finding which do not exist.
> If you're going to close yourself off to any product or organization that happens to have some users you disagree with
I do not see where I mentioned Framework users. I care about the actions of the company. I care that they decide to support DHH, financially and through promoting his projects, and I care that they double down on their support in the face of push-back.
> double down on their support in the face of push-back.
Because the push-back was dumb. This idea what we have to isolate and attack every person that we don't agree with is dumb. That you consider DHH's position on immigration sufficient to label him a fascist is dumb. All of it is moral showboating with no actual substance, otherwise you'd put your money where you mouth is and not purchase from most companies in the world that work with actual fascist regimes.
Your claim was that they explicitly support fascism. That doesn't seem to be the case at all. What you seem to mean instead is: They financially support a popular open source project called Omarchy, which is built by DHH, and you believe DHH to be a fascist.
You're welcome to your opinion, and I have zero insight into whether DHH is a fascist or not, but by no means is that explicit support for fascism! It's not just exaggeration, it's actually a lie.
If you buy a machine from Framework you might indirectly support a project which is maintained by someone whose opinions you dislike.
If you buy a Lenovo machine you will contribute to the revenue of an authoritarian government that will use some of that money to perpetuate human rights abuses against its own citizens, and maybe the citizens of your own country too one day.
Which is the most moral choice here in your opinion?
I mean I already answered that, didn't I? I find it worse to buy from the explicitly political pro-fascist company than to buy from the "normal company" which just "incidentally" benefit fascist governments through their normal business operations.
To exaggerate, we could imagine that there was an explicitly nazi computer manufacturer who put swastika stickers on their laptops and everything. When faced with the choice of Lenovo and this explicitly nazi manufacturer, I would probably choose the Lenovo, even though you could probably do the same consequentialist math and conclude that Lenovo does more actual harm through their utility to the CCP than what the tiny nazi computer company can do. I imagine you feel the same way.
What Framework does is obviously way less egregious than my hypothetical example, but I'm still not comfortable associating with a company which so publicly funds DHH, for the same kind of reason that I would not be comfortable associating with the nazi computer company.
Thanks for bearing with me, I am sincerely trying to understand your mindset here.
So this is really a signalling thing? If you bought a Framework laptop you'd be signalling to your peers that you're ambivalent about supporting an ideology that obviously you fundamentally disagree with and is unanimously despised within your groups?
By buying a Framework laptop I'm signaling to Framework that I don't care about their support of the ideology. My ideal outcome here would be that Framework's support of DHH would directly and unambiguously result in a dramatic loss of sales, which would signal to the world that supporting such ideologies is toxic to your brand.
And, sure, my peers play a role too. What message do I send, for example, to my transgender friends when I demonstrate that I don't mind Framework's public support of DHH's public transphobic rhetoric? What message do I send to my non-white friends when I demonstrate that I don't mind Framework's public support of DHH's public "the UK was better when it was all white" rhetoric? Et cetera.
There's a segment of people convinced that leadership must somehow be able to perfectly predict the future or they're incompetent losers, like running a business is somehow the easy part of capitalism.
Running a business is definitely the easy part of capitalism. Most leadership isn't just bad, they're bafflingly incompetent. Most companies fail. Of those that fail, they usually fail in extremely obvious ways built off of fundamental character flaws, like stubbornness or greed.
Tell me you've never a business without telling me you've never run a business. You're pulling things out of thin air and using it to support a position with no foundation.
I look at it and see just as many failed start-ups from engineer-founders as a do from non-engineer founders. The idea that being a programmer makes you better to run a business has nothing to back it up.
I'm not sure where this idea comes from though, it's not something I argued. The post I replied to claims engineers can't see the big picture and deal with end user requirements, and your own testimony above contradicts that.
Now that I'm getting older I like to pull out my "curmudgeon card" and blame it on the younger generation. New graduates entering the work grew up spending more time on mobile phones than laptops/desktops, and I wonder if these changes are to cater to this market that's shifting from mostly-mobile screen time to mostly-desktop. I imagine it's not too long before this segment is the majority.
I feel like we saw similar changes with the previous shift where new graduates knew GSuite and MS Office was some the software their parents would complain about. It's my shibboleth for identify my generation of computer users.
> least a dozen explanations less charitable than this one
Because you've already made up your mind that they're the bad guy, so it doesn't matter what really happened. One of the prevailing rules at HN used to be engage with the most charitable interpretation of an argument. It's always a better conversation when it's followed - this thread has just devolved into a bunch of pile-on virtue signaling with no actual interest in engaging honestly.
I don't perceive this as virtue signalling, this is your own slightly uncharitable interpretation. People are responding to what they perceive as bullying in line with what looks like extremely heavy-handee sales tactics that do not seem uncommon.
It also looks like it only got addressed because it hit a someone with enough traction to go viral. That they had to resort to this channel at all raises questions in itself that go beyond the initial mistake and this particular customer.
So while I agree that we do not know yet what actually happened, the response from Salesforce so far does not really address these all concerns, and is not inconsistent with less charitable views on what's going on.
I think this is rightfully getting called out. With big power comes big responsibility.
It's the literal definition of virtue signaling - a bunch of folks with zero context jumping to conclusions of evil and malicious intent to satisfy their own needs to join the pile-on comments and show how fake mad they are.
I see a thread of accusations and statements, not questions and engagement.
> It also looks like it only got addressed
The issue was less than two days old, in what world do you think a senior leader is going to learn of an issue like this in an org with 3,000 people? Most managers don't even get back to their direct reports in 24 hours, nonetheless getting a decision to someone higher up the ladder.
You seem to think people are responding here the way they are merely for social standing. At least, that's what virtue signaling is at its core, having looked at some definitions. I think people are upset at the actions of Slack/Salesforce and are responding accordingly. That would be a more organic or genuine motivation (for lack of a better word), while "virtue signaling" discounts the validity of people's responses and reduces them to a hollow show. That is why I called your interpretation uncharitable.
> The issue was less than two days old, in what world do you think a senior leader is going to learn of an issue like this in an org with 3,000 people?
We are commenting underneath a response by the CPO of Slack. There is a sibling comment by the CEO. I think they are aware.
People are calling them out on the things their resposes do not address, which I mentioned in my previous comment. It wouldn't even need to be answers to all the questions people have. The response could have included things like: this is not how we want to treat any of our customers; we will look into what went wrong and why; we will explain when we know and how we will try to prevent this from happening again.
That would have acknowledged the damage this issue does to the public perception of their business practices. Instead, they simply ignore all of that. Hence, people's reactions in here.
> We agree in spirit but not execution.
I agree that a lot of comments in here are quite emotional. I would be more wary if they were directed at a single individual acting in a personal capacity, instead of the representatives of a well-resourced corporation. The power imbalance matters a lot, and I think it makes a difference if someone rather more powerful is called out by more, rather than fewer, people.
Here's what I found for the definition - it perfectly captures 99% of the comments I'm reading.
"...the practice of conspicuously displaying one's good character, social conscience, or political alignment in order to gain praise, recognition, or social standing, often without taking meaningful action to support the cause one is professing to support".
People asking questions and attempting to engage are not virtual signaling, everyone else on their high horse throwing shade are doing exactly that. These comments are 100% pure worthless virtual signals that I expect to see on reddit, not HN.
> You seem to think people
I don't think, I know. Read the comments. No one here besides the original OP was impacted but everyone wants to pile-on and call them out with absolutely no real context while pulling conspiracy theories out of thin air and making statements about what must be true. I've seen very few actual posts where attempt to engage legitimately rather than some bullshit "gotcha!" comment.
> a response by the CPO of Slack
Yes, two days after the email was sent. Two days. Folks are whining that it wasn't "faster", that somehow these people are not reviewing every email that leaves the company. Worst case the OP wouldn't have paid, their Slack may have been disabled, and then when the CEO/CPO did find out the sales rep would have lost their job rather than what we're seeing here. But I believe that Slack would have done the right thing regardless.
> calling them out on the things their responses do not address
No most people are throwing accusations and making absolute statements of what they perceive to be truth. No one besides the original OP is entitled to a response from Slack, everyone else here is just using it as an opportunity to virtual signal. Why would anyone from Slack engage in this thread filled with hostility and zero lack of desire to understand what happened, because they're so convinced they already have the answer? These posters are tourists using this as an opportunity to show off how mad they are, not customers that deserve a response.
This thread is an embarrassment to the HN community, and we can go back years and find similar situations where company screwed up and will not find the vitriol found here.
Oh yes, people could be more level-headed and write more level-headed comments instead of emotional knee-jerk ones. But you know what? In this thread, you are one of them.
I read what you wrote and I see pre-conceived notions about what is or is not going on at Slack, about the motivations of your fellow commenters and the worth of their contributions, no openness, but dismissal wrapped in an increasingly generous portion of vitriol. Take a look at your words, and tell me you're not even outdoing many of them. It's just your sympathies are aligned differently.
That in turn annoys me. Some part of me really wants to blame you, but I actually don't. What'd be the point? We're just getting caught up in this crap. I get it, it's frustrating! I'm frustrated, you sound frustrated, and if you want to give them that, the people you are complaining about are frustrated, too.
Isn't it interesting how these things perpetuate themselves in online discussions? Somebody manages to piss us off, and the first reflex is to piss right back. Does it make anybody feel better? No. It sucks.
So yeah, this thread is not a great example of the good aspects of humanity. Let's not perpetuate it. Let's do better. Let's do something nice. It's fall here, the leaves are turning red. There's the possibility of cake. Hopefully there's something pleasant waiting for you, too. I wish you a nice Sunday, wherever you are.
The fact of the matter is that Slack knew they were a nonprofit and made the deliberate decision to engage in the SaaS equivalent of rent-seeking. This is honest engagement, and given the circumstances I think people in this thread have been incredibly charitable.
"Slack" didn't know anything. Slack isn't a human being. Like somehow everyone that joins the company connects a collective consciousness with shared memory.
> deliberate decision to engage in the SaaS equivalent of rent-seeking
Clearly you were involved in the process and have fist-hand knowledge to be so confident lol. The crazy absurdity of everyone being so convinced of the conspiracy theories they've pulled out of their asses.
> given the circumstances I think people in this thread have been incredibly charitable.
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
reply