Well, best of luck. You could try explaining that it needs to be rewritten in a modern framework, and you don't happen to be fluent in that. Unless you are. Give them the Scotty estimate of time.

I'm trying to be sympathetic to your problem of having work... Uncomfortable work isn't a blessing.

Bear in mind that the 'muh democracy's is an old meme, people complain about the Electoral College and forget Article 10. Federalism is confusing to modern, poorly educated voters who think our nation should be a monolith. 'Their' monolith, of course. Montana would not work under California rules. The 17th Amendment was intended to address corruption, but it's somewhat ruined the Federalist model. And of course you don't prevent corruption with law, you only expose and punish it. Punishment might limit corruption, but we have many examples to the contrary. Repeal the 17th, set term limits for Congress, then we'll see new forms of corruption.

Just imagine the new hire going in there. You'll be fine. What's the worst you could do, rewrite it all?

"This isn't a republic, its a democracy."

Where do you get this? Certainly not from understanding how our nation actually works.

"The problem is that 100 million or whatever it really is is just gone from the economy. It gets absorbed by Salesforce Senior Management and the big stockholders."

Oh, dear, all economists are amateurs.

One of the CTOs at my last work commented, 3 weeks into the role, that he was disappointed that only 68% of the corporate IT projects could be considered successful. He had a point, It was not that, at the time, we were only twice as successful as the overall reported success rate, for all industries that would answer the question.

Realizing that, per the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 20.4% of businesses fail in their first year after opening, 49.4% fail in their first 5 years, and 65.3% fail in their first 10 years, why are we at all concerned that 'most corporate AI pilots are failing to deliver any value.'? Most corporate AI pilots are early implementations of fresh new technology. They should be failing. Consider the development of modern missile technology. Fail fast, move on, get it right sooner rather than try to get it right the first time. Fail fast. Learn. Improve.

In truth, if you are replacing direct support roles with AI, you are most likely automating transactional tasks. Just a the voice response systems automated password resets and online self-help move that along another iteration, much of what passes for tech support is indeed transactional. And that is potentially able to be automated.

It's how my job went away, and a few years before AI was considered viable for those tasks. In fact, my job evolved, and I moved from role to role, as each time it was found to have become transactional. Earlier, the role moved to lower-cost resources, and that is just business. Later, it was more properly defined and transformed, and could be delivered for lower cost.

I pitied the others who were displaced in the last wave I finally got caught up in. Most were long-tenured, thought they were terribly valuable, and could not understand how any automation could re-place their insights into, for instance, generating spreadsheets that fed dashboards and enabled good decision-making. It was painful to listen to them. Worse to consider their prospects in the market. Nothing worse than realizing your skills are now irrelevant. Word to the middle-aged, learn learn learn. Oh, that's three words. But learn.

So it's now a patchy bit of software?

That is a successful model. Be proud of it.

"we need to bring down complexity"

Oh, making software simpler will solve all this? It will make software less useful and less interesting for sure.

But I do not see the quality issues the same way you all do. I see the GUI user interfaces enabling complexity in a way command-line interfaces could not survive. And of course, for both, it's usability. Command-line needed a few dozen man pages to guide us along, relying on command history to make them tolerable. The GUI claims to be self-evident. Ha.

...and considering that the app is accused of consuming all real RAM, did the OS go to swap? Well, actually, did the app end up consuming huge swap space, and the rest was swapping in and out furiously?

I'm suspicious also. Add in the concept that we are living in an age of worse software quality, considering the insane capabilities of current software, it's a wonder they dance at all.

Fat Lou Gerstner for IBM into the position of:

Mainframe rep explaining reliability, availability, responsiveness.

Mid-range rep explaining performance, cost benefit, expandability.

RISC rep explaining flexibility, performance, cost benefit.

And they all poo-poo'd the services rep, who explained next-generation, flexibility, low cost...

With IBM out-competing itself, not a lot of room for big competitors.

Was it Fat Lou who warned 'if you don't make it, deliver it, or touch a customer, you need to look for a job that does'...

PS - why is he Fat Lou?

I've heard these complaints since around 1993.

IBM welcomed Fat Lou Gerstner. His money quote at the time: "the last thing IBM needs right now is a vision". He focused them on actually delivering.

I knew a few IBMers at the time, and met more later as they jumped ship. To a man, they had all the same complaints as listed above.

I knew a lot more IBM customers - and I was one. We mostly welcomed a CEO that believed in actual product, delivery, and quality. Cue the NPCs who will point out that FLG cared not one bit about quality, he was just another CEO who cared only about the quarterlies.

But, in fact, IBM delivered a lot of stuff, and a lot of it was really good, compared to the competition, that believed they had the next insanely great thing, and very few delivered. In hardware, market share could be earned by being cute. In software, by being early. IBM application software was not as important to them as hardware, so a lot of disgruntled sorts declared IBM dead and left. 30 years later, It seems even IBMGS is surviving. And you can be sure their workforce continues to have these very same complaints, 30 years and going.

It's worse now because the new entries to the corporate workforce are ill equipped to perform in the corporate environment they find. Not because the environment changed, but because they were assured it would be better. And you never heard that before?

Pathetic.

You're spoiling the Leftists' fun, stop it.

OTOH, it is good news, so don't let them spoil it...

Oh, and seeing the proliferation of fiber providers just in my Arizona town, but still exclusivity within the neighborhoods they are permitted to pull fiber through, competitive access is still somewhat a dream. They will of course compete against the incumbent cable providers, and the fixed wireless providers, so it's not all bad.

Market access is the only way to rein in these blood suckers

FTFY