Never understood the backwards ass logic of expanding profits by firing people when the business is doing good. If majority of people are unemployed, no one’s going to pay for your YouTube Premium.
Nothing, it's just hard. The problem you trip over is retention of strong employees.
Many strong employees are ambitious and need the prospect of progression to be happy with their job. When growth slows below the employee ambition rate, not everyone can be sustainably paid more. Then you're faced with a choice of removing people to make space or employees being unhappy.
You can let this equillibrate naturally. The employees who are both ambitious and skilled enough to land other jobs will disproportionately be first out the door, leaving room for others. But this reduces the average talent level, and hurts company prospects, so many companies choose other paths. Some proactively fire the bottom 15% every year. Some heavily differentiate pay to make up for lack of promotions. Some constantly reorg and fail to find spots for employees in internal interviews. Offering a paid out for those who were thinking about it anyway seems a uniquely humane solution.
Agree. Early in my career I was in an org that had been fast growing but then sales went flat. I was effectively told that I could not be promoted because there were already too many people at level N+2 and N+1. I told my M2 that this to me meant we'd all just grow old together and the org would be static. He didn't disagree and I transferred to a new org which although it was also not growing, did have a leadership gap and a growth path for me.
Also, if you were someone picking a stock, which is likely to go up higher? One where the stock demonstrably keeps going up and to the right, or one that doesn’t?
The issue is everyone’s own greed. Including the old ladies and pension fund managers.
Which provides many benefits - but also, when push comes to shove - exposes the ‘teeth’ more directly.
The stock market just allows more abstract and scalable access to that greed, that otherwise would be more randomly distributed.
They have a term for ‘doesn’t go to the right’ in business - liquidation. It has nothing to do with time travel, and investors really don’t like it most of the time.
I am affraid there could be could be a political reason behind it all. Like Musk/Twitter.
I know, its unlikely to not have heard about internal rumors but who can tell how far the dystopian tech cult around thiel and co reaches. These guys clearly conspire for something. Ok, tinfoil head off now.
There's no political reason here. VEPs have been rolling out across different chunks of Google all year. They just got to youtube now. I'm not sure why they've been staggered, but I don't think that there is any connection to politics.
Wouldn't the network providers be able to detect those? I'm fairly sure they don't like their networks being abused either... or they don't really care because they get paid per connection.
edit: Actually this is what I'm getting increasingly angry about: providers and platforms not doing anything against bots or low value stuff (think Amazon dropshippers too) because any usage of their service, bots or otherwise, are metrics going up and metrics going brrt means profit and shareholder interest.
Its very possible they did detect it and that's why law enforcement got involved.
But yes, they also might not care if they are getting paid. If the SIMs are only being used for voice/text as I suspect, it might have very minimal load on the network.
> Lots of people manage to drive in poor visibility without radar, lidar, etc. If that's safe and normal for people, the principle that self driving should work with just cameras isn't such a strange one.
No camera system comes close to the capabilities of human eyes, combined with general intelligence.
While not always possible, in general, any mission critical scheduled job should be idempotent. This avoids so much headache, especially when there's a queue involved somewhere.
IMO the biggest issue with AI code is that writing code is the easiest part of software development. Reviewing code is so much more difficult than writing it, even more so if you're not already intimately familiar with it in the first place.
It's like with AI images, where they look plausible at first, but then you start noticing all the little things that are off in the sidelines.
writing code is the easiest part of software development. Reviewing code is so much more difficult than writing it
A lot of people say this, and I do not doubt that it is fully true in their real experience. But it is not necessarily the only way for things to be.
If more time and effort were put into writing code which is easier to review, the difficulty of writing it would increase and the difficulty of reading it would decrease, flipping that equation. The incentives just aren't like that. It doesn't pay to maximize readability against time spent writing: Not every line will have to be reviewed, and not every line that has to be reviewed will be so complex that readability needs to be perfect to be maintainable.
It's not the code itself that makes review difficult. Even the best written code can be difficult to review. The complexity of effective code review arises from the fact that you need to understand the domain to evaluate correctness of both the code itself and the tests covering it.
The problem with AI is that those incentives wrong incentives are taken to 10000x.
And regarding "not every line will have to be reviewed, and not every line that has to be reviewed will be so complex that readability needs to be perfect to be maintainable.", the problem with AI is that code becomes basically unknowable.
Which is fine if everything that is built is slop, but many things aren't slop. Stuff that touches money, healthcare, personal relationships, etc you know, the things that matter in life, risks all turning into slop, which <will> have real life consequences.
Only if you have studded winter tires that are in good condition. Throw in a sprinkling of powder and there's nothing even a professional WRC driver could do.
Another personal favorite is driving on ice with a tiny layer of sun melted water so you can also hydroplane.
I drive 50k miles a year in a snowy area with regular all season tires and front wheel drive. Its completely doable! You just have to git gud, like for real, ice isn't going to change your trajectory so just avoid a spin and you'll quickly reach the end of the ice patch. Anyone can learn this skill. Just spend some time sliding around an icy parking lot at night. Then again. and again. and again.
> Twitter works just as well as it did before Musk took it over.
Not true. The main reason I stopped clicking Twitter links in the first place was the abysmal chance of the tweet loading and not just displaying a generic "Failed to load. Try again?" after the takeover. I mean it occasionally happened before as well, but it became the default behavior.
It lasted long enough that by the time (over a year) they'd finally fixed it, the platform had deteriorated to a right-wing cesspool anyway.
Like mentioned by sibling comments, GDPR explicitly does not allow this. It's just the fact that enforcement is spotty and complicated by the fact that the responsibility is shared across all EU member states with limitations what each country can do by itself, with some countries' data protection authorities intentionally dragging their feet to protect multinationals.
It's the same issue as with most EU-wide issues, where there's always countries competing with each other at the benefit of others.
Also GDPR is not exclusive to browsers or internet, it's applicable universally, for both online and offline businesses and processes, which is why it can't and doesn't prescribe exact technical implementation details.
The first requirement for this to work is a bulletproof framework to hold companies financially accountable if they use your personal information without your explicit consent.
At the moment, they get all your data anyway and can do whatever they want and get 100% of the profit and there’s nothing you can do about it. Where’s the incentive for them to share any of it?
I haven’t really found this to be true. You probably wouldn’t want to build Figma in Rails, but the average SaaS CRUD app is a perfect fit for Rails with a sprinkling of Turbo Frames.
It’s usually the lack of non-React knowledge to know what does or doesn’t require React.
