It's possible that can’t actually prove that the keys were destroyed was the only legally relevant part of your testimony.

I can’t prove that you’re not DB Cooper. Does that mean you’re guilty?

The goal of expert testimony is not to find the best technical solution. The goal is to adjudicate a dispute. So yes, objective qualifications trump subjective ones, and that shouldn't be surprising or disappointing.

All of the qualifications you list amount to subjective evidence of clout in an obscure (to non-programmers) programming clique.

On the other hand, the certificate from a Blockchain University probably had a well defined curriculum and criteria for passing.

> On the other hand, the certificate from a Blockchain University probably had a well defined curriculum and criteria for passing.

Is this serious?

Yeah, the junior dev analogy misses on the core capabilities. The ability to spit out syntactically correct blocks of code in a second or two is a massive win, even if it requires careful review.

Yup, it's been a help for me. Had a buddy who asked me if I could automate his workflow in wordpress for post submissions he had to deal with. I asked chatgpt with a little prodding to create me a little workflow. I cleaned it up a bit and threw it in AWS lambda for literally 0$. He was super thankful and hooked me up with a bunch of meat (his dad is a butcher) and I spent maybe an hour on it.

Maybe managers like the author are the problem.

Startup founders who cash in, join Google, and are unpleasantly surprised to find that they are now just another middle manager who founded some startup nobody's heard of or cares about.

The empathy for the customer doesn't exactly ooze from the essay ("at the expiry of my three year mandatory retention period" == "now that I am all paid up").

Part one of the fix is vague management cliches, high minded mission statements and war metaphors. I seriously doubt Google lacks these.

And the fix for endless middle manager meddling? Endless reorgs? "Winnow the layers of middle management" (read: reorgs), and mandate that customers, support staff, and managers all waste their time on a weekly heart to heart (you'll note that the author doesn't mention going through the exercise himself).

> Maybe managers like the author are the problem... Startup founders who cash in, join Google, and are unpleasantly surprised to find that they are now just another middle manager..

The author was a Distinguished Engineer at Google and before founding AppSheet he was a Partner Architect at Microsoft. Holds a PhD.

I found the article very well written and would trust it over any other media reports.

Why should Google risk their brand reputation in this way? The majority of their users probably have never heard of ChatGPT. They just know Google as the thing that gives them factual information. Google have something to lose by directing their enormous user base to a buggy ChatGPT clone.

Bing isn't unpopular, it's just a non-entity. They don't have any brand value to harm.

> that can quickly be iterated on. It's pretty dubious to assume problems with this tech can be fixed on a short time scale

Bing has ~8% market share and has been consistently stealing share from Google.

It's not the same scale but it has many millions of DAUs and is definitely not a "non-entity"

Bing is good enough. Google is good enough. Neither really makes me care one way or another.

If Microsoft paid apple $billions to change the default search to bing I’d probably not bother to switch back.

As I said, ancillary. Do it in a way that doesn't impede the current search experience AFA getting the results they need, but gives something extra that is notable, even if flawed.

They need to do this because they will implode from innovators dilemma otherwise.