I'd be more sympathetic if Gov ministers actually took part in meaningful debate & didn't weaponise terms like "abuse and misinformation" to attack the "free speech and expression" of everyone else. Instead it looks like retreating to an echo chamber to avoid critisism/accountability
A minister in charge of media and culture is quitting X because of “misinformation”.
Lisa Nandy’s government is the biggest purveyor of misinformation.
She doesn’t like free speech.
Fair enough, obviously. No one has to stay. Still, I’m struck by the number of people who liked this platform when it DID practice censorship, but who are now upset when it DOESN’T.
In other countries, governments give tax breaks to private schools. They love it when parents choose not to ask the state to bear the full cost of their children's education, and try to be helpful.
In Britain, uniquely, economics and education are subordinated to spite.
Certain factions of the "rich," like Rogen, don't self-identify because they believe they were given their wealth in exchange for access to their delicate genius.
Whereas if you got rich selling widgets, you're clearly exploiting your fellow man and hoarding wealth.
You see, there's good money and bad money. Bad money is other people's money. Your money is good money. Being "rich" is what the bad people do with their money.
Well who wudda thunk it?! The Starmer-Reeves defence spending plan assumes £10 billion in defence ‘efficiencies’/savings — and leaves Andy Burnham to find a further £5 billion for defence in the next Budget for the figures to add up. Starmer-Reeves — shysters til the very end.
8 yrs ago you ran on a platform that a two-term limit was a major part of. Then as soon as you got in you scrapped that idea. So this reads "Eight years ago, blah blah blah..." 🙉
Think about this, the 7+ year old Teslas with AI3 that are now getting FSD V14 Lite have a more capable self-driving system than any brand-new non-Tesla car currently sold in North America.
Pretty wild.
As engineering, product, design, DS, etc. melt into a new kind of role, I was reflecting on what roles might look like in the future. For example, when I look at the Claude Code team I see what I think is five archetypes:
1. Prototyper: comes up with brand new ideas; churns out many ideas, most of which don't ship
2. Builder: quickly turns a prototype/idea into production-grade product/infra
3. Sweeper: cleans up the UI, simplifies the code and system, unships, optimizes performance
4. Grower: takes a product that has been built and iterates on it to improve Product-Market Fit
5. Maintainer: owns a mature system to make it secure, reliable, fast, and efficient as it scales
Many people span across 2 roles, and sometimes 3 roles. I also notice that these roles are not really tied to job function -- eg. across Anthropic, some designers match category 1, some 2, some 3; same for engineers, PM, DS.
A healthy team needs a mix of these, depending on the product:
- A product that is new and pre-PMF needs people that are strong at 1+2+3
- A product that is growing and has found PMF needs 2+3+4 and some 5
- A product that has strong PMF needs 3+4+5 and some 2
Maybe product roles of the future will look more like this, and less like the domain-specific roles of today?