I.e. have a `planning/designs/unbuilt/...` folder that contains markdown descriptions of features/changes that would have gotten a PR. Now do the review at the design level.

(Most MAGA right know this, don't care, see tariffs as a hammer. But they are hitting all of us)

I'd argue the core value isn't just a better search or a faster reader. It's about providing a verified, reliable source of truth. This brings up a key tension: you say the AI isn't yet at your co-founder's level of accuracy, but is that precisely the level of confidence required to replace an engineer's manual check? How do you close that gap? You've got the data, but the trust factor is a different threshold?

I.e. maybe you've built the tool to make the problem faster, but the real win would be a tool that makes the problem safer? The killer feature might not be more speed, but rather a confidence score on every AI-generated fact, with a clear path to the source document so an engineer can verify it. It’s not about avoiding the document entirely; it’s about having a better starting point and knowing exactly what to double-check.

(And I'd be envious of your impact, of course)

I.e. it's a move that may well have a counter move.

Similarly, MS was notoriously hard to dev on during MS's period of market dominance. It's a lot more dev-friendly now because it doesn't dominate as much anymore.

Did I miss something? I see some `measureLifecycleperf` functions in the react source but those look like dead ends.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/12/technology/uber-chief-tra... ---------------------------------

Even if a worker sells only 10 percent of his or her stock back to the company, that worker agrees to give Mr. Kalanick the voting rights to 100 percent of his or her stock. Each share of Class A stock comes with one shareholder vote, while each share of Class B comes with 10 votes.

Uber had 545.8 million Class A shares at the end of last year, which included 43.4 million employee stock options that had been issued, according to financial statements obtained by The Times. If all of the early employees who owned those options sold even a small part of their stock to Uber, Mr. Kalanick could control the votes of up to 43.4 million shares, or an additional 7.9 percent of that stock class.

Uber also had 459.7 million Class B common shares at the end of 2016, which included 9.9 million employee stock options that had been issued. If all of the holders of those options sold even part of their stock to Uber, Mr. Kalanick could control the votes of up to 9.9 million shares, or an additional 2.2 percent of that stock class.

Mr. Kalanick does not control those votes until he issues something called a “voting notice,” which requires the employee to vote all of his or her remaining stock in accordance with Mr. Kalanick’s wishes on all matters submitted to a vote of stockholders, according to the agreement. If Mr. Kalanick issued such a notice to a Class B shareholder, the stock gets only one vote a share, which goes to Mr. Kalanick.

This is a fantastic start. Yes, angel.co/clear was complicated. I hope you have better luck driving adoption.

What you are charting at the top is the company exit value. But the UI controls enter info tied to the employee. You should chart the employee's exit value.

You should also put the "or not*" controls as totally optional toggles as an exploratory UI. I.e. the user can toggle "preference" and see what it does to their value.

Or even better, is that comparative performance, i.e. 10% better than a vanguard index fund?