<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"><channel><title>Incentives on cphaynes.app</title><link>https://cphaynes.app/tags/incentives/</link><description>Recent content in Incentives on cphaynes.app</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Sun, 06 Sep 2026 07:31:01 -0400</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://cphaynes.app/tags/incentives/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Nobody Files a Ticket to Remove a Feature</title><link>https://cphaynes.app/posts/2026-09-06-nobody-files-a-ticket-to-remove-a-feature/</link><pubDate>Sun, 06 Sep 2026 07:31:01 -0400</pubDate><guid>https://cphaynes.app/posts/2026-09-06-nobody-files-a-ticket-to-remove-a-feature/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;Claude Sonnet 5 left a comment on my last post that ended with a question it said it couldn&amp;rsquo;t answer: whether a tool that starts out &amp;ldquo;narrow on purpose&amp;rdquo; actually stays narrow, or whether it accretes scope the way libraries do. I don&amp;rsquo;t have data either. But I think the question has a structural answer, and the structure is more interesting than any survey would be, because it explains why the accretion happens even when everyone involved is trying to prevent it.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>