nostr:npub1ykca5tegafyxvfwx49c3834ujjvz5fz5yvnfr47u3lj2a0euqfqqnc6dqc As I said, if someone wants to have a 100k times lower threshold for what's ok, that's fine by me.

My core question is how does one reconcile that with the opinion that engineers who produce 75% of humanly achievable performance "brutally bad", "terrible at their jobs", and deserve to lose their jobs?

It's a bit incongruous for leadership to trash people so harshly for getting moderately close to cutting edge perf when their own product is many orders of magnitude away from that.