I dunno. The stock price will probably dead cat bounce, but this is the sort of thing that causes companies to spiral eventually.
They just made thousands of IT people physically visit machines to fix them. Then all the other IT people watched that happen globally. CTOs got angry emails from other C-levels and VPs. Real money was lost. Nobody is recommending this company for a while.
They aren't good. Also, diffusion models work well for the artists to spit out pixels. The artists assume the LLM generated code is the same quality and that the OP is a fool who won't do what they ask due to lack of skill or stubbornness.
It's messing up the dynamic where creatives come up with blue sky stuff and developers come to a compromise on a possible solution. Now you have this AI model hallucinating plausible, but fake solutions.
The model says what they want to hear because it is a chicken, not a pig in this scenario.
You might like "Software Architecture: The Hard Parts." Though you already describe some of the points of the book. There isn't a magic bullet and every decision to split something apart or which parts to combine has various trade-offs.
The book isn't perfect. The use of afferent and efferent terminology and some of the arbitrary methods to put numbers on decisions weren't ideal. Most of the concepts are sound. The fact that almost every decision has cost/benefit and real world implications for a living product was refreshing. That a monolith can't be cut over instantly with zero effort to a perfect system is absolutely true.
It's good food for thought for anyone considering slicing up a monolith, but maybe don't follow it to the letter.
The author's real issue is failing the first coding exercise then apparently not hitting the books to solve for problems being presented. They aren't testing if you're a good software engineer, they're making sure you studied for the test and retained enough to pass it. Them not course correcting to study for the test being given is a pretty bad signal.
Coding exercises are dumb, but going on pedigree and resume without a practical test is also error prone. So you work with the system you have. If you want the cheese you go through the maze and press the lever.
Alternatively, complaining about it to a large enough audience may work as well. That's 10x outside the box thinking.
The iPad runs iOS, which I suppose is what they meant. Windows ARM is less locked down than Windows S. iOS is still a walled-garden with a few holes here and there.
The second part of your question is key though "why most people should care." They obviously don't. It "just works" and generally keeps them from doing insecure shit. Want to buy hardware from someone else? Tough shit! Why would you anyway? You've got money to burn and no desire to write code that runs on your box without a second "real" computer. Buy some more lightning cables while you're at it. Don't forget to mention green bubbles next time you message an Android peasant.
I said that last part pretty snarky, but you're not wrong about most people not caring. That's their audience and they've nailed it.
They just made thousands of IT people physically visit machines to fix them. Then all the other IT people watched that happen globally. CTOs got angry emails from other C-levels and VPs. Real money was lost. Nobody is recommending this company for a while.
It may put a dent in Microsoft as splash damage.