‘Enterprise’ software includes SaaS, internal LoB software, integration work, and a bunch of other things I can’t name. The LoB and integration work is usually boring from a technical point of view, so articles don’t get written as much, and they likely wouldn’t do as well on HN, compared to something highly technical about scaling something to serve millions of users. There’s probably many more hours of work, and more programmers, doing LoB and integration, but people in a SaaS bubble don’t see what happens elsewhere.

I did a live demo in front of the CPAs, using their documentation, and Claude asked clarification questions they hadn't thought of and exposed gaps in the old manual processes.

Organisational patterns that work for startups rapidly iterating to find product market fit won’t work well for a consultancy building a better defined product for a single client, or a corpo IT department trying to shoehorn a new distribution channel through a 30 year old logistics system.

A team of experienced engineers who know the problem domain and have worked together for years needs different organisational structures than a team of new hires and grads. A team of introverted hermits and a team of extroverts will function differently regardless of organisational structure.

You need to have some idea of where ideas work and don’t work before you can design the ones needed for your specific situation.

0. One of the ideas that has tagged along with inclusion has been changing from an input focus ("e.g. No girls allowed in treehouse!") to an output focus (Fewer girls than boys are in the treehouse). In the input focused model, you want to change the rule to stop excluding girls. In the output focused model you also need to change the treehouse to be more attractive to girls. From this, any 'deviant' interests that happen to be gendered (or racial, cultural, etc) get suppressed in the name of creating inclusive outcomes.

1. Most humans have a natural urge to conform to those around us, some just experience it stronger or weaker than others. When 'deviants' are included in a non-deviant space, their deviant tendencies face a subtle yet strong conformity pressure that wouldn't be felt if they were excluded entirely.

2. 'Deviants' being accepted more widely means they don't need to create or find their own spaces. Hence there are fewer spaces where the deviation is locally normal, which would allow the conformist pressure to enhance and refine the deviation.

> Connor was more blunt: “Maybe you think a book about a school shooting is really important,” she said, “but kids want to read a fun book. That’s what kids want today—they want to have fun.”

> But if you’re a new author who’s written a quiet, issue-oriented debut, “you might have to think about adapting, in a way.”

> Eberly, the book agent, doesn’t think the supply of serious, “award-winning” books will dry up. “Knowing the editors that I sell to, those are the types of books they want to shepherd into the world.”

Maybe kids would rather read fun adventure stories rather than the issue-driven stories that adults are pushing on them.

Could be something like... Our team spent 500 hours fixing bugs introduced during overtime, and we spent 250 hours of overtime to introduce those bugs in the first place. So an additional hour of overtime will likely introduce 2 hours of technical debt.

Or maybe... Code written using inheritance hierarchies creates 40 minutes of muda per hour, but using composition only creates 20 minutes. Or... every hour spent on throw-away prototypes reduces muda by 2 hours.

Long term, when renewables have displaced fossil fuels, then profits will fall. But that only happens after the renewables get investment.

In many (if not most) cases, loosing at a fair arbitration would be cheaper for the company than winning in court by outspending on lawyers.

Of course, there's also the 'stopping class actions' thing.

And sometimes these are bad and need to be dissolved.