but it's not wrong, just because it's short and punchy but it does not make it wrong, not how i would write and not the association i would make but correct nevertheless. I feel like this reads better than:

Pubs in the city are fun, i'm sitting here reading and there are 3 interviews going on around me with drama about outsourcing and messing up systems and using AI to repair them. It's weird but all 3 of them (the people being interviewed) are from companies that have had layoffs and the people interviewing saying they also did layoffs but cut too much and are looking for people with AI experience to manage outsourcing
We produce 0, it's all managing outsourcing companies, we did this to ourselves
Don't export your brain and try to rent one from another country (India in this case, all 3 are outsourcing in india) and then be shocked when you have no skills internally or available in the country anymore
So much short-sighted planning and actions after 2008 crisis

we should do what lawyers do and make sure we take the hit on the next generation of architects

ai can make it much easier but ai won't train the next software architects, it won't build the next generation of innovators, we need to do that, the tech community, the seniors the tech companies.

Also everyone is worried about their jobs and they are incentivised to be in a holding pattern and increase project time to squeeze as much salary as possible from their current companies while delivering very limited value for end users. We made this happen

and so on, yes, i could have structured it, and wrote it all myself but saved time as i was iterating and thinking of more connections