995 karma · joined November 14, 2012
It's worth noting that this is the first time I've ever heard of this company in my life. Something can't be "cancelled" if it has no mind share.
It would, but that's not what's being discussed.
The accusation is that the companies are restricting speech by saying that managers cannot provide a reference, even if they clearly state in said reference that the views are their own and not that of their employer. Nobody is trying to compel anyone else to provide a reference, the idea is that nobody should be prohibited from it, especially since for long term employees leaving on good terms their manager(s) is/are probably one of their best references.
If a coworker confidently gave me code that is not only wrong, but relies on things that don't exist, I wouldn't call it creative. If they tried to claim that no I'm wrong, it is real, I might even say they hallucinated it.
Counterpoint: not restricting innovation in any way has quite a track record of backfiring spectacularly, too, because it turns out the goal is often "make as much money as possible at the expense of everyone else".
That said it's probably asking quite a lot to composite that kind of data together in any meaningful way. You need a lot of domain knowledge for that.
Musk gets criticism for the things he does do, not the things he doesn't do. It's pretty rare I see any acknowledgement, especially in the media, of how little he has personally accomplished with Tesla or SpaceX, the focus is always on his next big stunt (twitter buyout, boring company, hyperloop).
Gates was absolutely vilified when he was the active head of Microsoft, essentially seen as the devil incarnate by many. But a few years after he retired and went all-in on philanthropy, he became a saint in the media and the general zeitgeist. Now that he's just making passive billions off his investments, everyone stopped caring how he gets the money and just about what he does with it.
Google in particular left behind the excuse of "we just serve what's already available" when they started weighting results for political and commercial gain and labelling things as factual. They clearly do not act as a dumb pipe for information gathering.
IMI, as soon as they started exercising editorial privilege on data they serve, they became responsible for this kind of thing. Uncensored search results can only come from an engine that isn't censoring for their own benefit anyway.
What's changed since then? Has it gone through some kind of massive redesign?
But really, the problem being solved by OP was not enough outputs, rather than not enough inputs.
Not 7%, but also way better than cash.
Another issue is when doing data entry or 2fa codes, one hand tends to be busy holding something. The number row is basically unusable one-handed as far as I'm concerned.
And for me, mouse distance from the keyboard has never been an issue, because I use them in different scenarios. It's not often that I'm dual wielding them to the point shoulder angles are a concern. If I'm spending hours coding, the amount of mouse usage is going to be minimal.
But also, if people are actively complaining about it, maybe that's a good indicator the street shouldn't be used as a thoroughfare in directions. Being a little bit faster isn't a good justification, and back road shortcuts aren't something that should be widely advertised to tourists and visitors.
I think this too strong of a generalization.
The Great Plains region, for example, relies on the Ogalalla Aquifer for it's groundwater, which has been dropping at accelerating rates because so many farmers and ranchers draw heavily from it (even more than they would otherwise, thanks to crop subsidies), along with being a huge drinking water source. The depletion of groundwater is a big deal in that region.
I also feel like it's a bit disingenuous to refer to baseball as a "child's game", when most people know it for the professional variety played by high end athletes.
I will 100% fault them for acting on it. Just like I'll fault a company for choosing terrible single use plastics that increase their bottom line a bit, and companies that use AI to reduce head count. You can disagree with a decision even if you understand why it was made.