> You're right. It's a very dynamic area, so more change could come at any time. For now, I'm glad they've reduce the overall number of names being used. As fo

> You're right. It's a very dynamic area, so more change could come at any time. For now, I'm glad they've reduce the overall number of names being used. As for AI apps. There is "Assistant", "Gemini", "AI studio", "Gemma", "Natural language" (yes really, as in "Google Natural Language", not sure what it does), "Duet", "Duet for workspace", "Cloud Vision", ... This you call reducing names? https://cloud.google.com/products/ai?hl=en https://cloud.google.com/products/ai?hl=en > The general consensus seems to be that for a long time Google employees were lazy/complacent/taking-it-easy. If it was as bad as has been said, This would make sense ... except then I look at a bunch that I know were fired and I have to say, I don't agree these people were being lazy. Plus ... loads of people with exceptional skills, that found new jobs, in some cases even before the layoff announcement, and all but one I knew in less than 2 months. This, to me, does not sound like lazy people. Besides, that wouldn't even matter. The problem with lazyness is that the choice is clear: what do you want? A very lazy expert? Or a very eager incompetent worker? The truth there is simple: A lazy expert will perform between 0 and incredible. A very eager incompetent worker will perform between destroy the project entirely and slighly above 0. And in my experience what works well for software is a mix. Lazy or not, medium to expert ... 80%, eager juniors 20% or so. And the juniors cannot be entirely junior (finished a decent education, capable of serious programming on day 1).