365 karma · joined June 1, 2022
Not necessarily, especially if ChatGPT makes the user no longer need to even visit the website in order to get the content. Remember, google drives visits. ChatGPT aims to provide the answer.
You can see the data here for MSFT, Google, Amazon, Meta and Spotify. Yes, other companies did not exhibit the same pattern, but the point remains.
But, now they want to blame leaders when there are mass layoffs. I think the blame is misplaced. The root cause was the stock market, and better yet blame the fed. The incentive was to show growth at all costs, even at the expense of burning cash. Leaders who did not optimize to growth were fired in many cases. But the game changed when stimulus and endless money printing stopped.
My read is a bit different, in that the board optimizes to the stock price above all, which yes they benefit from but that just means their personal interests are in alignment with the interests of stock holders. I do not blame the leaders so much as I blame the model. Leaders who do not optimize the stock price are quickly expelled. When the stock market was flush with covid stimulus cash, and even before that whilst the market was hot, the name of the game was showing growth. Companies were incentivized to show growth even at the cost of burning cash. Companies took on massive debt and in many cases, either did stock buybacks and/or hired rapidly in an effort to scale their organization for growth. When the market fundamentals changed, and money started swinging back towards safer bets (cash flow positive companies), suddenly the game had changed and leaders needed to react accordingly.
I guess in summary, hate the game not the player.
Going back to the subject at hand (fentanyl use), I think one can safely state that more people are dying from drug overdoses and suicide than they were in other decades in US history. Is it people who have changed, or their environment? And do you disagree that there is a correlation? Certainly there has to be. Availability of fentanyl correlates with fentanyl deaths, whereas unavailability of fentanyl would correlate with lack of fentanyl deaths. And so all the ways that the environment of 2020 is now better than in 1920, seems not to translate to less drug overdoses and suicides. And I can think of no better indicator of quality of life, than the indicator of how many people are choosing death over living.
Define significant part. There are people in 2020 living in absolutely abhorrent slums. Most major US cities have areas meeting this definition.
> People on average worked 60 hours weeks,
Unsure if this is true. Even if it is, probably more accurate to say of those people who worked, they worked an average of 60 hours per week. But in 2020 a higher percentage of the population is working. Women in the workforce has grown exponentially. This too is a major shift / difference.
> Overall, the conditions of living were so harsh that people were numbing themselves with alcohol on a massive scale, ultimately leading to Prohibition Act.
Suicide rate in the US has been steadily climbing decade over decade. What does that say about our living conditions?
Not in agreement on this. 2020 looks profoundly different than 1920, for example from the lens of western societies. People are more atomized, have less friends, are having less kids, are getting married less often, divorced more often, job prospects for blue collars workers have diminished, etc etc. Not to mention the simple fact that Fentanyl did not exist in 1920. While man might not have changed much inherently, their environment has changed profoundly and seemingly not for the better.
Just this week, I had to reach REI because a package showing as delivered was not actually delivered. The carrier researched the problem and told me that I needed to contact the seller. I clicked Live Chat from REI support page, picked from few menu options, got connected to an agent, and within a few mins had sent me out a new order plus refunded me for one item they no longer had in stock. During the chat I had the option to either elect for a new order, or to have full refund. Being on standby "like a radio operator" allowed quick exchange and resolution. I much preferred this to a phone call or elongated email exchange. My POV is that different people have different tastes/preferences concerning the channels they want to use to receive support. I think it is good when companies offer multiple options.
The snowden revelations were precisely about information gathering for intelligence purposes. The vast majority of intel gathering is not for prosecutionary purposes.
It might be right that the ministers/politicians have not really thought through the implications. But someone else surely has and is making censorship (of the things that challenge their power) a matter of policy. The actions of big tech are a matter of their internal policies. Which "populist" opinions politicians respond to (and which they ignore) is a matter of policy. In an age when populist opinion is manufactured through control of content and media, politicians are no longer moved by the opinions of their constituents but rather by those holding onto that control. Instances of bipartisan support in the US, for example, are merely instances where the topic is important to the elite and need bear no relationship to the opinions of the people.
Let's test this theory. Create a post across 10 social media platforms disparaging the white race. Now do the same amount jews. See which set of posts gets taken down at a higher rate.
Where it gets really weird is that other manager might decide to layoff someone from their team, for example a low performer, to make room for a higher performer that original manager is having to let go. The whole process is done very behind the scenes without effected employees being told. Finally when firing day comes the employee is basically told they are fired but have the option to "apply" for this other role.
Unclear why this company does not do it out in the open like Google and Facebook have chosen to do.
Edit: fixed spelling
- I noticed in the demo video that engineers are effectively just repeating what they previously wrote in the tool before the meeting. So where is the time saving? If anything I am seeing time added not saved.
- One of the benefits (for me) of walking through the board during standup, is that I ensure all tickets exist and are properly updated to reflect current status. This reinforces the message that Jira (in our case) is the source of truth. My concern is that introducing another tool risks muddying the waters concerning where source of truth lays.
- Standups usually result in parking lot items for a subset of the team, but seldom is the entire team needed. I think you could improve "team topics" by changing it to "parking lot" and allowing people to +1 their involvement. From this new conversations (chat or video) could later spin off to close out a parking lot item.
Best of luck with the future of your product. I have no doubt that some teams will find it useful.
> It’s convenient that you preempted the argument that kills your entire comment, you made everyone else’s job easier.
Ironic, you just did the thing you accused me of.
Putting that aside, "You especially cannot force a business to deal with you if they don’t want to" is where I disagree with you. In the case of a bakery, I agree with you. In the case of what could be classified as a public utility, such as a payment system, is where I disagree with you. Certain services which have monopolistic or near monopolistic positions and being necessary to participate in the economy (paypal) or society (facebook) should not be in the business of policing speech. And it is the governments role in making sure this is the case (as the collective muscle of the people to ensure their rights are maintained). We've been indoctrinated for decades to fear and limit the ability of the government to do as such, as well as indoctrinated for decades to place the rights of business interests above our own rights as citizens. I argue to break this position of slavery and place our rights first. Why shouldn't Paypal be forced to do business with me?
Ever heard of a limited hangout?
Let's face it, the decisions of Paypal and others (Youtube, Twitter, etc) when deciding who stays and who goes on its platform are ideologically and politically motivated. The leaders of these companies are basing their decisions on their own political leanings. And in the vast majority of cases like the Daily Sceptic where a user or service is being deplatformed, the reason is idealogical (rather than a case where the user is for example defrauding the platform or service provider).
I believe a better solution would be for the government to penalize companies that are repressive to the rights granted to us in the bill of rights (for example free speech). This whole "but it is a private company who gets to dictate what speech they want and don't want on their site" needs to go out the window. If a company wants to operate within the US, it needs to respect the rights of the country's population (rather than define its own set of rights).
Do you have citation for this?