Wonderful write-up. One way I really try to avoid premature abstractions is co-locating code wherever it is used. If you don't try to put everything in a shared lib or utils, you keep the surface area small. Putting a function in the same file (or same folder) makes it clear that it is meant to be used in that folder only. You have to be diligent about your imports though and be sure you don't have some crazy relative paths. Then, if you find yourself with that same function in lots of places in your code, you might have an stumbled upon an abstraction. That's when you put it in the shared lib or utils folder. But maybe not, maybe that abstraction should stay in a nested folder because it is specifically used for a subset of problems. Again, that's to avoid over-abstracting. If you are only using it for 3 use cases that are all within the same parent folder path (just different sub-folders), then only co-locate it as far up in the file tree as is absolutely necessary for keeping the import simple. Again, it requires due diligence, but the compartmentalization of the folder structure feels elegant in its simplicity.
I feel like the CEO could have changed tactics a bit to avoid the visceral response Steve experienced. Instead of assuming that he wasn't the right person for the job, he could have just said that the approach needed to shift. He ended up making it personal. The fact that Steve had to ask if he could be the person (irrespective of the CEO saying he could be a candidate and finding him a coach), is the problem. The CEO should have lead with "you've done a great job, and here's what we'll need from you to take things to the next level". That makes it more about trying to help him grow into the person the company needed by finding the coach, and only then deciding whether or not he needed to search for a new candidate. And it seems like the employee would have a better understanding at that point of what was needed and if he/she could live up to those responsibilities and expectations. While it was a story about personal growth, it feels more like a failure of leadership to me.
I'm glad to see that we are getting closer to "what are the practical applications?" of GenAI. To me, the values lies well beyond "it can do everything! This will change the world!". It can't, but it might just change a lot. Blockchain technology had it's time in the sun, but now the proof is in the pudding. When new technology needs to meet the needs of the masses, it hits a brick wall of "prove your practical value to me". It seems like GenAI can see that wall coming in the distance. The question, is whether or not it can sustain the impact.