This sounds like a non sequitur to me, when did I ever say I disagreed with the fact that "they just want to get shit done?" I am not sure what your comment has to do with the part about misconstruing features for moving parts, for those are two independent things, and still more generally, like I said, people do pay for software that has more features than fewer.

> Every delivered feature is a liability not an asset.

> If you don’t believe me, consider two products that make customers equally happy and one has half as many moving parts. Which one is more profitable to maintain?

Wrong analogy, use the word feature in both emphasized terms. Consider two products and one has half as many features, which is more profitable to maintain? Well, it depends whether people are paying for the other half of the feature set or not, as oftentimes people will pay for more features than fewer.

Exactly, these two sentences seem at first related,

> No deadlines, minimal coordination, and no managers telling you what to do.

> In return, we ask for extraordinarily high ownership and the ability to get a lot done by yourself.

but can be insidious if implemented incorrectly. High ownership to do what you want, but what happens if what you decide goes against the goals of the manager or the company itself? No company can succeed without at least some sort of overarching goal structure, from which employees will naturally avail and seek to benefit themselves.

There are keyboard cases like https://www.clicks.tech/ which attach to your phone directly.

The same with movie sound mixing, where directors like Nolan are infamous for muffling dialogue in home setups because he wants the sound mixed for large, IMAX scale theater setups.