3 ms·
> I appreciate the point of the article as written, which I think is to encourage engineers to push harder against the grain when their plans for the product re
by michaelt 2y ago
> I appreciate the point of the article as written, which I think is to encourage engineers to push harder against the grain when their plans for the product really are the right idea,
My interpretation of the article is different.
I think the author is merely drawing attention to a force that pushes businesses in a particular direction, without proposing any specific solution.
The article doesn't say he had an alternative design or vision he wishes he had pushed harder, or anything like that. In fact he's full of praise for Manifest V3, which he considers the most elegant technical solution to a real problem, which he considered an indefensible security and privacy risk.
- bckr 2y agoArticle’s last sentence “And we — the well-meaning engineers — shoulder much of the blame.”
- MBCook 2y agoRight. I read it as merely an argument again “this thing Google did to be evil.” It’s more complicated than that and there’s no way to discuss things if someone takes that stance. The article wasn’t trying to convince you the changes was good or bad. People can do what they see as the right thing (limiting plugins) for the right reason (they had WAY too much access to data), and despite no evil being intended or agenda to protect the ad business existing, people come to that conclusion. This facts are just all more complicated than the common talking points you see. That’s it seems to be trying to show.