News headlines claimed that 30% of microsofts code is AI generated. Digging deeper, I found the quotes used in news outlets. But then, when I watched the actual interview, where Satya Nadella made the statement as an answer to Mark Zuckerberg, the statement was not made with much confidence.

My main question was, how do you track code that is AI generated, vs Human written, vs Copy-pasta from Stackoverflow?

App developers want to keep you trapped in their app. They prevent you from fully exploring the web, by placing you into a gilded cage. The cage might look pretty, but we still want to browse the way we want to, with an actual web browser.

I love Star Wars, especially Andor. But what kept bothering me is whenever they talked about time, "day", "night", what does that mean when you travel across the galaxy?

Join me in this episode where we explore how NASA keep track of time across our solar system.

I love tech hardware and software. But the second we add an internet connection, devices turn into spying boxes designed to help the company, not the owner.

Inspired by "The Gap" from Ira Glass. Because of that taste, I'm often disappointed by all the work I produce. But that is normal, as long as it doesn't stop me from continuing to work.

https://idiallo.com/blog/what-a-disappointing-blog

The TikTok model is the future of the web we are getting if we don't make changes. Would you prefer if the web was served to you, instead of you actively searching?

Apple creates the iPhone—a revolutionary product that changes everything. A billion people buy it. By any reasonable measure, that's success. So why is it immediately redefined as failure? In this episode, we explore the paradox at the heart of modern capitalism: success that doesn't lead to more success is viewed as a problem, and satisfied customers are dead ends for business growth.

Imagine creating the perfect product—durable, high-quality, solving real problems. You launch it, everyone buys it, and the world is happy. What happens next should be celebration, but instead it's crisis. Because in a system demanding infinite growth, your success has become your ceiling. Now you must convince satisfied customers to buy again, which means either planned obsolescence or holding back features for "Version 2.0."

Drawing on examples from Apple's impossible iPhone upgrade cycle to the Marvel movie formula of never allowing satisfaction, we examine how this perpetual motion machine of consumption shapes both business strategy and consumer psychology. Companies learn "never give your best on the first try." We internalize that contentment is stagnation and last year's perfectly functional device is somehow insufficient.

This isn't just about products—it's about a system that's forgotten how to breathe, that only knows how to inhale and grow but never exhale and rest. We explore what it would mean to measure success by satisfaction instead of sales, and whether we have the courage to say "this is enough" in an economy designed to prevent that sentence from ever being spoken.

Key Quotes

"In our current system, success is redefined as failure if it doesn't lead to more success. Apple sells a billion iPhones—revolutionary, right? But if they can't convince those billion customers to buy again, the original success is retroactively viewed as a failure."

"Our satisfaction is a problem for business. A truly satisfied customer is a dead end. A customer who is almost satisfied but sees a brighter, shinier solution on the horizon—that's the engine of growth."

"Maybe the next big innovation isn't a new product at all. Maybe it's figuring out how to slow down. How to build companies that can thrive without infinite growth."

When I first research Unions in 2020, they were on the decline. Today it is even worst, and worker protections are falling apart. Join me in this journey as we uncover the state of things in 2025.

Originally published here: https://idiallo.com/blog/unions-are-not-coming-back

We can't reliably identify great engineers in interviews. The process is broken—some candidates are master performers who can't ship code, while others interview poorly but become your best team members. So when we finally, miraculously find exceptional engineers on the job, what do we do? We immediately try to promote them away from what they're great at.

In this episode, we explore the absurdity of the traditional career ladder that assumes the best reward for mastering engineering is to stop doing it. Drawing on personal experiences interviewing the "greatest communicator" who couldn't complete a single task, we examine the Peter Principle in action: great developers become senior developers, then tech leads, then managers—at each step stripping away what made them valuable in the first place.

The problem isn't just organizational—it's structural. Many engineers don't want to manage people, but they see "senior," "lead," and "manager" as the only path forward for recognition and compensation. We've built a system where the only way to give someone a significant raise is to promote them into a role they might not want and might not be good at. The result? We lose great engineers and gain mediocre managers who are miserable in their roles.

We need to normalize horizontal growth—paths where engineers can gain expertise, tackle more complex challenges, and earn top-tier compensation without leaving their position of strength. Because if interviews can't identify great engineers, shouldn't we do everything possible to keep them exactly where they are when we finally find them? Just give them more money and let them keep writing code.

Key Quotes

"It's like finding an Olympic swimmer and immediately making them a swim coach. Sure, maybe they'll be good at it. But you just took an exceptional swimmer out of the pool."

"The traditional career ladder assumes that everyone wants to eventually stop doing technical work. It assumes that the best reward for mastering a craft is to stop practicing it."

"If interviews can't reliably identify great engineers, shouldn't we do everything possible to keep them exactly where they are when we finally find them?"

Was Steve Jobs' abrasive personality the secret to Apple's success? Should you emulate his management style? Spoiler alert: the answer is definitely not what most mid-level managers think.

In this episode, we explore the dangerous delusion that's creating terrible managers everywhere—the belief that acting like Steve Jobs is a path to success. Starting with a personal story of a manager who threatened to fire someone every Monday morning, we examine why being a brilliant jerk works at the top but fails spectacularly in the middle of an organization.

The difference comes down to authority, autonomy, and consequences. Jobs was the Captain with ultimate authority, an irreplaceable vision, the power to make people millionaires, and a Tim Cook to clean up his messes. Mid-level managers have none of these advantages. Your "because I said so" can be overruled. You need favors from peers. You can't promise life-changing wealth. And you definitely don't have someone whose job is to repair the relationships you destroy.

When layoffs came, the threatening manager was first on the list—and no one went to bat for him. The bridges he burned came back to haunt him. Through this and other examples, we explore why influence-based power requires building bridges, not burning them, and why the Steve Jobs playbook is a recipe for career suicide when you're not the founder CEO.

Essential listening for anyone in management who's ever wondered if being tougher and more demanding is the answer to driving better results.

"When the captain is an asshole, the crew might stay for the voyage. When a fellow crewmate is an asshole, they get thrown overboard."

"Behind Steve Jobs' grandiose ideas and abrasive personality, there were people who handled the operations and relationship-focused work he didn't have time for. That's what Tim Cook was for. As a mid-level manager, you don't have a Tim Cook, do you?"

"The Steve Jobs delusion is thinking that his worst qualities were his best qualities. That being difficult was the source of his success rather than an obstacle he overcame."