Programmer Dan Luu observes that he notices many more bugs than most users and attributes this to a pattern he calls quality blindness. He says that sharing observed issues with colleagues can increase their awareness, and he has been consulted by executives to evaluate software for defects. Luu classifies bugs from mild to severe, noting that severe bugs cause incompatibility with typical user workflows. He reports that large language models can simulate typical user interactions and reproduce the same problems he encounters. He cites examples where search engines returned results lacking useful content and included pages with limited relevance, which he rates as moderate in severity. Some users dispute his assessment of Kagi, providing their own results that differ from his description. Luu discusses how supporters of certain products often overlook criticism, referencing Volvo owners who defend reliability data and Blackboard users who report frequent dissatisfaction despite official statements. He describes performance issues in Discourse forum software that involved intentional slowdowns to improve performance metrics, which he characterizes as deliberate modification. He notes personal habits he has developed to avoid software quirks, such as changing typing behavior in Google Docs and disabling Wi‑Fi before logging in. He suggests that user dogfooding can improve quality awareness when participants are receptive. He adds that quality blindness can affect product teams, particularly as AI coding agents enable rapid creation of code with varying quality. Luu acknowledges comments from several contributors that corrected inaccuracies in his post and mentions recent interface issues in Google Docs.