[carefulfungi]

(I'm editing to fix my tone).

Having first hand experience with building multiple open source and open core dev infra companies, the advice in this article is spot on. If it is AI slop, it's still good advice.

I'd prefer comments focused on content vs. trying to Turing-test AI generated text.

[eddythompson80]

It's not the tone, it's the content—just share your prompt

[CuriouslyC]

What if his prompt was a dump of his thoughts and a request to condense them to a coherent article? I guarantee you wouldn't have seen that version of the article, and if you did you'd probably still be shitting on it.

There's no way to win (except to human wash the article, which ironically usually involves making it less coherent/clean), so why bother trying to please people like you?

[figmert]

The content is useful only if it's fact-checked. The author evidently did not even bother editing the article, so how is anyone supposed to know whether it's factual or it's conjured out of some numbers.

[eptcyka]

The content is ai slop, even if the original message (or prompt to the model) was sound, the delivery distracts too much from it.