Summarizing Kola 🔑’s idea from a conversation:

Our methods of critiquing software are shallow. We have reviews, reactions, tutorials, puff-pieces, and clout-chasers. It’s important to have independent, thorough, and cultural critique, and it should be distributed among those who are building the future (The Paolo Alto Review).

This isn’t about reviews for the masses. It’s to steer the consciousness of engineers and founders. Consider how writing about the Velvet Underground ended up influences a whole generation of bands. And consider the sway tech companies have. The November OpenAI fiasco showed that 200-300 technical people had the ability to overthrow a board and Sam Altman’s firing. The values of these people are terribly important, especially when they’re entrenched in incentives that are dangerous.

We need a Paris Review for software. While there are writers covering tech from a philosophical angle, there are 3 problems:

Incentives: Of course, Marc Andreesen is a techno-optimist.
Speed: The rate of progress requires rapid, real-time analysis.
Aggregation: There isn’t a single spot to unify critique from a shared perspective.