The dragon book is a classic, and was a terrific resource thirty and forty years ago. Today there are many far better resources. Several listed adjacent to this one.

It’s focused on theory and very heavy on parsing. All of that is fine, but not especially useful for the hobbies.

That's not his previous workflow. The previous workflow was:

"CEO creates low-effort bug report" -> "CEO uses the low-effort bug report as a starting point to further refine the report and eventually fix the issue in his company's product"

The author's fixes based on the slop are good, because he knows the issue is slop and therefore can improve and fix the sloppiness.

Ignoring AI for a moment: I don't expect anyone to be able to write a design-doc from my own random notes about a problem. They are semi-formed, disconnected ideas that need a lot of refinement. I know that and I have plans around them and know much more context, but if some random person were to take them the outcome would be very bad, or at least require a lot more effort.

A random person has very little chance of being successful with that.

This issue is very similar, only with some AI tools intermediating the notes.

LLMs scrape Wikipedia all the time, or at least attempt to.

The data bundle doesn't help that at all.

That's true, the normal scraping would still happen, but it would eliminate this side business of trying to re-sell LinkedIn's data.

Multi-user has been solved for decades.

Multi-user that plausibly looks like single-user to three letter agencies?

Not even close.

Doesn't having standard multi-user functionality automatically create the plausible deniability? If they tried so hard to create an artificial plausible deniability that would be more suspicious than normal functionality that just gets used sometimes.

What needs to be plausibly denied is the existence of a second user account, because you're not going to be able to plausibly deny that the account belongs to you when it resides on the phone found in your pocket.

After years of legal wrangling and headaches she came to a settlement that may or may not have been her originally preferred solution.

It's a detailed paper by five highly qualified researchers, with over 100 citations, and thanks six different reviewers.

It seems very likely to me that they would have said something about this theory if it were relevant.

I don't think anyone at Google thought building a social network would be easy, and Page knows Google planned and did spend a huge amount of money on the failure.

Google just that it was necessary and possible, not that it would be easy. I suspect that many other up-the-stack adventures by other companies were similar.

Non X version:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1810790280922288617.html