It says "Our users are everywhere" and shows some logos for the companies these users are from.
If the users are from those companies, this is not lying.
If they added logos for companies their users are not from, it would be lying.
Adding a logo to your webpage has started to follow different patterns for the stage of the company.
Early stage companies show things like "people at X, Y, Z use our product!" (showing logos without permission), whilst later stage ones tend to show logos after asking for permission, and with more formal case studies.
They may not have asked for permission to show these logos, but that's not the same thing as lying.
There's a lot of heavy lifting in the idea that someone who tried it / used it of their own volition that happens to work for, say Google, is the same as indicating that your product is "used by Google".
> If the users are from those companies, this is not lying.
Do you really believe all of those companies allow employees to install pre-release software on their computers which records company meetings and interacts with a long list of 3rd party APIs? I doubt it.
They could have had people who are employed by these companies use it on their personal computers for some purpose, but the implication they’re trying to make is that those companies have chosen this software. That’s a lie.
> and interacts with a long list of 3rd party APIs? I doubt it.
It does not interact with 3rd party API.(except opt-out-able analytics) It uses local-ai models. No data leave user's device. It helps users in large org to try it.
> but the implication they’re trying to make is that those companies have chosen this software.
We used "Our *Users* are Everywhere" to avoid that implication. It is not typical B2B software, but open-source desktop app that individuals can use.
I rolled out a migration to 60+ backends by using Claude code to manage it in the background. Simultaneously, I worked on other features while keeping my usual meeting load. I have more commits and releases per week than I have had in my whole career, which is objectively more productive.
Sometimes when I read such meaningless things my first reaction is to feel like I'm too ignorant to understand what the person says.
But then when I really think about it usually they're just bullshitting out being purposefully vague, using terms that don't mean anything precise in order to avoid actual criticism.
I question your assertion that more commits and releases per week is more productivity. There could be unexpected effects from your commits that create more work for you or for others and that could be hard to quantify.
Doing bad things faster might feel more productive to you, but it doesn’t mean that you are delivering more value. You might be, but the metrics you have shared to not prove that.
Me neither. I hear about assaults against female passengers but I don't believe I've read or heard about one against female drivers. I've asked a few women I've gotten in Ubers with and they say they've had some dicey situations but no out right assaults.
But I don't think you were asking genuinely and just wanted to be snarky without contributing to the conversation :)
His is the best response in this thread. The point is that whether you've personally heard of something or not is not a great indicator of anything.
To answer the original question, wherever there is any power imbalance, there will be abuse. Priests, teachers, parents vs children; boss vs employee; "vulnerable" females vs "aggressive" males. A man complains about assault by a woman, everyone laughs. A woman complains about assault by a man, he gets thrown in jail.
I called my todo list a 1 billion dollar product! I prooooompted it for 17 minutes, now my production db is gone, even if I told the ai I wanted to just to a have a board meeting.
reply