Some incredible management there - produce more with less people and less money.
It's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it pays off for 'em
But to be fair, corporations need to say every single thing in a positive light or else media would savagely quote them. See what happens when somebody big admits openly making a mistake. They get punished. This stupidity destroys an honest society. Media and social media are evil forces.
We've got to get over this "all media bad" mentality. It's counterproductive and not helping anything. Sure, there are garbage media organizations publishing to maximize profits but there are also all kinds of organizations doing stellar journalism these days too. Also, "media" is such a broad term that it's almost meaningless.
They just don't have any viewership.
It may be worth studying why and what can be done to fix this. But I bet one will get stuck with "it's because of government corruption" pretty soon and have no place to move from there.
Its a net loss for humanity, as is all political correctness instead of objective truth which should always be pursued. Maybe a good idea on paper, but it failed to actually change anything or anybody, fringe people just got pushed into their own siloed groups and there is no coming back, thanx to 'media'.
Now with ie US elections of gradually in Europe too we saw and see how all fringe quietly became majority at the end.
It's the complete opposite of a growth mindset.
It's a sales mindset.
Our society only wants to hear from con-men, and so (big surprise here) we tend to put literal con-men in leadership positions.
I'd love to hear some recommendations on how to change the incentives around this.
From the information they publish, it looks like stopping the race because you got tired just before the finish line. I wonder what part of the public information is false.
The race hasn't stopped.
I think you're confused as to which side of the employer-employee struggle the media aligns itself with. All major news outlets are owned by the owning class, whose interests align with those of Bezos and other employers.
Recently, a member of the owning class did a literal actual Hitler salute on stage twice, and the closest the mass media came to calling a spade a spade was saying things like "alleged resemblance to a Roman salute".
If he really wanted to come out as a “Charlie Chapplin” fan, he would have repainted his brands in the associated colours.
> Recently, a member of the owning class did a literal actual Hitler salute on stage twice, and the closest the mass media came to calling a spade a spade was saying things like "alleged resemblance to a Roman salute".
It took me literally 2 seconds to google for an example of mass media calling it a "Nazi salute". So you're basically just lying to promote your political agenda.
Most would agree what he did appeared similar to a Nazi salute. Describing it as an "apparent" Nazi salute seems accurate.
There are many references to it in major media outlets though, including this one [1] in the New York Times raising the fact that it was being referred to in strange ways like "Roman salute."
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/24/world/europe/elon-musk-ro...
The headline should be "Elon Musk does Hitler salute on stage", but it isn't. It should be a really big deal, but somehow, it isn't.
I don't know what Elon's intentions are and wouldn't begin to guess. There is a huge difference, though, in being able to say factually that someone was murdered or that the legal system of apartheid ended and saying why you believe someone made a certain gesture.
Anyone could raise their arm and accidentally make a motion similar to a Nazi salute, hell I wouldn't be surprised if you could find a few videos of John McCain making a similar gesture due to his shoulder injuries. Making that gesture doesn't make you a Nazi or it a Nazi salute, why you make that gesture is what decides that.
Do you see no difference in assuming intent from a physical gesture and factually stating someone is dead or a sociopolitical system has been officially ended?
If he was a literal Nazi, don't you think he would have done or said something more incriminating by now? The dude is on twitter shitposting 24/7, surely he would have said something about gassing the jews or whatnot.
The poster said "Elon Musk does Hitler salute on stage" should have been the headline, because it's a Hitler salute.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1Zwiv8erk0
It does not require "intent" to be what it is, or call out those who write headlines pretending there is any doubt about what the gesture is.
> Anyone could raise their arm and accidentally make a motion similar to a Nazi salute
Only a Nazi can do it during the inauguration of a president who says he's above the law and acts the part, and then instead of apologizing for the mistake, post shit like "Bet you did nazi that coming", spamming the "crying with laughter emoji" like he loves to do.
> the closest the mass media came to calling a spade a spade was saying things like "alleged resemblance to a Roman salute".
Here's the Guardian:
> ‘The gesture speaks for itself’: Germans respond to Musk’s apparent Nazi salute
Can you see how you didn't accurately describe the text "apparent Nazi salute" when you chose the words "alleged resemblance to a Roman salute"?
There's a word for what you did. It's "lying".
I would follow someone if they were kind enough to show me how to get somewhere but then I’m very gullible
He probably meant it.
Edit for requested source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Mars%3A_A_Technical_Ta...
The author wrote the store around 40 years in his future. We have yet to send a mission to mars, meaning he was off by at least 40 more years.
"Elon" in the story is the title used by the martian leader, not the martian's name and definitely not the human billionaire seeking to make the mission happen.
How exactly is it a literal prophecy?
If you shift the goal posts from "nazi salute" to the "intent", apropos nothing, that should give you pause. You call other people retarded, essentially, and can't follow this simple conversation? Huh?
I call BS - don’t humanize corporations, they do what they can to maximize profit.
Media is being helpful; without media’s work corporations would still present things in good light for them, only now without third parties involved. Consumers would not benefit from that.
For the ~4 centuries we've had stuff similar to corporations, that never worked anywhere.
Corporations will always cartelize and try to protect each other.
Also, about corporations always protecting each other, this looks incorrect, e.g.: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_warfare
Yes, actions have consequences. It's not like these are honest, unavoidable misakes these businesses make. They ruthlessly plan around these concepts, and any failure has employees pay the most.
Compare that with Blue Origin that was founded BEFORE SpaceX (in 2000), which launched its first orbital rocket just recently, while SpaceX has launched Falcon 9 rocket 400+ times.
What am I missing here? Can someone please help me understand the other side aside from taking away peoples livelihood = bad and rich people want all the money for themselves
The result is that good people end up loafing because of lowered morale.
If you are in the rest of the world, batch firing "the bottom 10%" for the stated reason of performance (they normally lie and say it is for a different reason) still requires the exact same amount of effort as doing it when there are actual performance issues.
Properly managed teams deal with actual poor performers, and your bottom 10% employee might be a top 1% employee any other company.
Zuck fired a large number of “underperformers” (obviously if they’re based on performance reviews there is plenty of room for error) and critics said that firing people for that reason destroys their dignity. I see it as giving them an opportunity to actually earn their dignity. I know that the people who are duds in our company have a negative reputation, so is allowing them to keep their job and bad reps really keeping their dignity? To me, that results in a middling (at best) society. It’s a dangerous trait to keep in a culture. Letting people exist in a way that doesn’t allow them to flourish is a very cruel thing to do to them and to the future of humanity.
Subjectively, I’m not the programmer’s programmer or a great PM, but needing to serve both of those roles has given me a perspective that allows me to identify value in projects where two people in segmented roles would not. Being able to squeeze another 100% of value with 5% of work every once in a while is a good feeling.
I’m not so arrogant to say that I’m a top tier person, but I hope this answers the question without saying so. I also want to say that I wouldn’t be able to do the things I could do without fantastic business and operational teammates. It makes it all the more frustrating when I see duds in the same role who I know are making more money than great contributors.
I’m sure President Musks FCC director will be ameanable.
[0] - https://www.geekwire.com/2025/blue-origin-to-lay-off-10-of-w...
Hiring 8,000 people in two years then coming to the conclusion you "aren’t set up for the kind of success that we really wanted to have" is gross incompetence. Management isn't cleared out on the back of such a performance.