There’s a lot of software being written in these big companies that never ship due to politics, deprioritization, product mismanagement, change in company directions etc.
There is also a lot of software that never ships because it’s intended to be internally used exclusively. 174 makes no distinction between internal/external products. I do not know if it makes a distinction between products and products-that-never-reach-market. I suspect it does not, since a core tenet of the regulation is that there must be some uncertainty of outcome in order to be research and development. Products that fail before reaching the market seem to fall in that zone of uncertainty and are likely deductible.
Generally to boost numbers for the quarter, it takes a while for the damage to propagate through the system after a mass firing (in terms of new code/features/products) but the profits increase instantly, appeasing investors who think only in terms of weeks and quarters.
I’m continually surprised that this tactic still works. It’s been rinsed and repeated so many times that the inevitable damage (and effect on the company financials) is practically boring.
> They are older and learn slower, they also learned a lot of biases over the years
Hasn’t this been disproven time and time again. And research has shown continuous learning helps to prevent or delay cognitive decline.