meeting

Attention over time

7-day rolling share of analyzed posts/comments mentioning this entity · 90 daily points ending 2026-10-15

Final complete day: 2026-10-15. Attention was 0.4% — this entity appeared in 10 of 2,852 analyzed posts/comments in the seven days ending that day (11 mentions).

Each point is a seven-day rolling window of complete UTC days; a point is comparable only when at least 100 analyzed posts or comments fall inside it. A day with no analyzed records counts as zero; missing coverage is marked and never shown as zero. The series ends at the latest complete analyzed day — it never extends into the current incomplete day. How attention is measured.

Recent mentions

1. 2026-10-15 21:55 UTCComment

   AI is used to determine how to shit at my office. Can’t have any meeting that are not AI focused.

2. 2026-10-14 04:42 UTCComment

   I think that would be more like 2 rounds to me if one day of meetings contained them all vs months of interview rounds

3. 2026-10-13 10:07 UTCComment

   Enterprise web dev. It's actually quite different from agency work and while Claude / cursor or whatever does help, enterprise is difficult to do just one shot. I have been also thinking about if I want to go towards more product owner route but I really dislike meetings.

4. 2026-10-12 03:43 UTCComment

   Yes but also no. Think about the hours you spend on working on a site (including meetings, revisions, planning , etc) and how much youd need to get even, taxes included.

5. 2026-10-12 01:54 UTCComment

   The line I use is whether the conversation can be written into the design doc. If the reason for talking to someone before the meeting is a real constraint, a dependency, a performance limit, a migration order, then it is normal coordination. If the reason only exists as a feeling about who gets credit or who gets blamed if it fails, that is politics. The same hallway chat can be either, and the person often does not know which it is until they try to write it down. One test I use is after the meeting, could you put the pre-meeting exchange in the decision log without it sounding embarrassing? If yes, you were just doing the job. If not, you were managing perception, not the problem. The worst politics I have seen was two engineers each telling the lead privately that the other's design was risky. Neither wanted to be the one to say it in review. It looked like engineering, but it was just blame positioning. What is the last situation where you felt you had to talk to someone privately before a technical decision, and could you have