> that multi-million and even billion dollar tech companies don’t have perfect websites in terms of UX
I would have thought it'd be the opposite.
It implies have hundreds of teams and UI / UX often is "scaled" in weird ways where everyone does their own thing and becomes a giant mess.
Everything is "correct" when you slice it enough. So from team A's perspective this might be a gain. When you are a part of a team you only see and own this part. That's your KPI.
Unless there's real and working governance (often very very hard) then it's not happening. To get that governance you need company direction and company buy-in that stops managers trying to push new features fast to infinity.
Fashion designers can, in general, work with fabric, yes. And an interior designer should probably have some idea of how to paint at the very least. To me with web design so much of what matters is encoded in the CSS and HTML that it is the final design product. Anything produced before is a sketch, a concept, but it's not a design.
For example designers and developers both use the computer as their primary medium of working. Their outputs resemble each other very closely, despite having a different underlying form.
Contrast that to the interior designer building a house, well those are different mediums. There is no efficiency gain from the interior designer designing the plan and also implementing it. Where as with a designer working in code there is one.
Fashion designers do indeed make clothing by hand, it's a very important part of their craft. This example disproves your stance.
> The product has always felt obvious to us: teams waste 45+ minutes per incident just context-switching between Grafana, AWS Console, PagerDuty, and Slack before they even start debugging. We collapsed that.
This sounds more like a symptom than the actual problem. They shouldn't have to context switch. Using LLMs to stitch it together is like adding glue to broken glass.
> And every week another enterprise tells us their infra team wants to "just build it themselves with Claude."
This might not last. Reports already keep coming up on issues with Claude for example. Also any "rewrite" from scratch looks good on first go. Time will tell.
> To improve this, we have shipped a few UX improvements (eg. to nudge you to /clear before continuing a long stale session)
Is this really an improvement? Shouldn't this be something you investigate before introducing 1M context?
What is a long stale session?
If that's not how Claude Code is intended to be used it might as well auto quit after a period of time. If not then if it's an acceptable use case users shouldn't change their behavior.
> People pulling in a large number of skills, or running many agents or background automations, which sometimes happens when using a large number of plugins.
If this was an issue there should have been a cap on it before the future was released and only increased once you were sure it is fine? What is "a large number"? Then how do we know what to do?
It feels like "AI" has improved speed but is in fact just cutting corners.
> When I hear: I'm not good at frontend, I'm good at backend - I'm starting to think this is not true.
There's no absolute true false in anything like that. Generalization is just an easy way to reduce thinking.
To take that analogy further - when you go to a specialist (doctor) and get assigned 1 are they the best 1? If you have a different problem do you have to go to a different specialist?
So it's not about you. It's about society or your company. You get a job, e.g. backend engineer. That's your "label". It doesn't actually say what you're better at -- just that you were tested for backend by company standards and got in.
All it says is expressed interest.
That's like asking a casual how are you...
reply