Strategy - just doing what your friends on the golf course are doing.
The number of times I have been told "oh I talked to so and so and they are having SUCH a good time using X" and then three years later "oh I talked to so and so and they got rid of X as soon as they could, we should switch!"
Or the management all read the same article in PC Magazine and lo! the next day did orders come down to implement said article, regardless. Waterworld, rowing the Valdez. Some years of this usually results in some number of half-baked or half-implemented systems scattered about production, and who knows which if any are actually used, or how much stink there will be to shutdown something unpatchable. Like why are there two wiki engines, sharepoint, three different database servers, …
And those in power who went out of their way to demonize DEI, is that why they didn't like it? I would argue strongly that no, they had their priors already set, and anything help black people or poor people (the new proxy for hating black people) was bad and they'd lie through their teeth about the impact to get anyone on their side.
Yes, they did dislike it because it was discriminatory, not because it helped poor and Black people. I don't know the views of people you've met, but in my circles the opponents of DEI are mostly tech workers in SF and Seattle - not exactly a conservative demographic. I can't count a single Republican between us.
The course of our relationship with DEI was pretty similar: in university we earnestly believed that women were discriminated against in tech hiring. One of us even built a prototype anonymous interviewing platform. Once we entered the workforce, there was pretty big whiplash when we started getting visibility into our own companies' hiring pipelines. Many of us - including myself - found ourselves actively carrying out discrimination on the basis of sex and race. Mostly sex, though - while our DEI advocates often invoked racial disparities to emphasize the need for these discriminatory policies, the actual beneficiaries of these policies were mostly white and Asian women.
Does this make me any less likely to support better school funding, and other public benefits that help poor people and Black people? I don't think so. The discriminatory practices of tech company hiring is pretty far removed from these issues in my view. Why would should an underserved school not receive better funding because some tech companies preferentially hired an Asian female over an Asian male? I see no connection between these two.
Your experience of how the world works is usually because of what work you have done. You can't grow twice as many crops, sell twice as many groceries, drive twice as many busses, because of AI - fundamentally there's a consumption problem as well.
Many businesses are not bottlenecked by processes that are computer based.
But the firms in the headlines doing layoffs after layoffs aren't growing crops, selling groceries, or driving busses... They're knowledge work roles in companies selling intangible products and services. It's large corporations doing this much more than SMBs.
They’re also the ones constantly hiring and recruiting because internally nearly everyone benefits to having more people “under them”, and there’s a massive HR/Talent team that doesn’t go into hibernation after a 20% workforce reduction. Organizations want to grow, not because they need to but because it’s in the best interest of nearly all individuals still on the inside.
That's why it's so important that people get some stock compensation, so that when the stock goes up when they finally fire people the incentives are aligned.
And I’m sure those companies also have “backlogs" due to limited labor/labor costs. There are always shelves to face, vehicles with deferred maintenance, and so on.
Obviously, there are limits: I’m not sure what my local grocery store or bus line would do with 100 new workers, but I have no doubt they could put a few people to work right away.
Well, but they aren't doing so right now, because labour has costs.
If your existing labour suddenly gets more productive, there's still a trade-off between cost and benefit to be made. And it would be a great coincidence if the optimal trade-off were exactly at the same headcount as the old trade-off under the old productivity figures.
It's more likely that the optimal trade-off for the business under the new conditions is at some other headcount.
He can continue to propagandize the lie to reduce people's belief in changing is good(and has), change laws to benefit oil companies (and has), and cause wars over oil(and has). Seems like he has plenty he can do to make the current situation worse.
And all that amounts to a tiny footnote in the carbon bookkeeping as long as people drive ICE cars, travel by air, eat beef, and heat or cool their homes with gas or coal or oil. But also, the economy at large is transitioning and there’s little that Trump can do about it. There’s no future in fossil fuels and Trump can’t change that. At best he can divert some money to his fellow crooks in the short term.
What you refuse to understand is all that you cited even if absolutely true would have had an impact unmeasurable with what tools we have at the moment.
Do you understand the word "unmeasurable"?
It means that whatever value you assign to that particular trump variable is so below the noise that it does not matter, can not matter, and anyone pretending it does is a manipulator; a crook.
because he paid families to sleep in beds and hang out with their children, this is not a normal adult man behavior, and defending it on the internet is weird.
It is not normal adult behavior and he likely should have had therapy.
But it is not necessarily pedophilia. Because that means wanting to have sex with children.
The explanation I heard is he wanted to be close to children to compensate for his own lack of innocent childhood. Children don't do sexual intercourse. Now if he was a child in his mind, then I as a parent would surely not have gave my children to his care, but this is still something very different from child molesting.
First of all children have sexual intercourse all the time. Many of my friends had sexual intercourse before 16, one as young as 8, it was between children, so no adults were part of this.
So what you are saying is flawed. Even if Michael was a child in his mind, he was not inherently asexual.
Treating children as incapable of sex is dangerous and you are giving a prime example. Treating Michael Jackson like a child is absolutely insanity because I don’t know a single child with a vacation Ranch and private security detail keeping everyone from witnessing how he actually lived.
Pedophilia is a sexual attraction to prepubescent children. The attraction is the disorder; acting on it is a separate thing (child sexual abuse). Michael was definitely a pedophile but maybe not a child sex abuser.
I am sometimes with hippi people and there is a thing called cuddle puddle. Cold around the fire, people get close to each other. But can also happen inside, on some couch, bed. The thing is, this is not sexual at all. Just people enjoying being close with each other. It can evolve into something sexual under special conditions, but usually it is not. Especially not, when children are around. Rather archaic feeling of wolf pack gets close to share body heat and feel each other. All there, all calm, all safe.
So I don't know what happened in Michaels bedroom, was it the innocent or the weird or even sick version. But I certainly won't condem the innocent version in general. The world needs rather more of this very normal close bonding, not people being afraid of being close with children for fear of being called a pedophile.
"Michael was definitely a pedophile"
So I would like to know what makes you so sure of it, that there was a sexual desire?
Apart from that, you are right, that also children can experiment or be very early. But normal childrens play or adult children interaction is not sexual. So I don't see the final conclusion. Did you read the article linked above? The media reporting about it was anything, but not fair nor factual. Did you consider you might have been influenced by that? I certainly do consider that I might be wrong here with my judgement, but all evidence so far I read against him seems either fabricated or hysterical from the point of view of puritans.
There is a wide, wide range between "normal behaviour" and "sex offender". I'm fine with being weird, and have no qualms defending the right of other people to be weird.
Maybe he liked playing with children because adults are evil and only saw him as a moneybag to try to extricate a payday from. If he wasn't harming them, it's not my business.
Normalizing children spending the night in the beds of billionaires isn’t just weird, it’s probably dangerous for children at large. Personal freedom isn’t a blank check, we control what is acceptable as society.
Michael had a secluded ranch with private security to ensure we would never know what he did with the children.
Those security guards have been questioned extensivly by court, though. And they did not seem of the loyal kind, take secrets to the grave, rather the contrary.
I think when you admit on public television and public comms that you will commit war crimes and then you do commit war crimes we should have a notable exception - there's no possibility Pete Hegeseth didn't know exactly what, how, and when his war crimes were going to be perpetuated.
The death penalty was supposed to be for exceptional circumstances now, and look where we are. This country has put innocent people to death.
If you make exceptions, you will make more exceptions, and you are eventually guaranteed to put an innocent person to death due to the law of large numbers. A justice system must have a way to reverse mistakes to deliver justice properly, period.
Bad people doing bad things doesn't invalidate good people doing the right thing. If we kill innocent people that is bad, and we should require an incredibly high bar for this type of thing.
It becomes a slipper slope argument - well if we allow people to be jailed then inncocent people will be jailed and that's due to the law of large numbers, and there's no way to reverse our incredibly horrible prison system as it stands.
So now its my job to build our restorative justice system or... take out a few more nazis.
I don’t see how the death penalty adds anything here. There are already significant consequences. People who commit such crimes either do not expect to face the consequences or don’t consider the consequences at all.
Sure, and that might as well be said for any punishment at all for them. When you take mass human life you should not expect to stick around for your cronies to bust you out of jail in 10 years when the political winds have shifted for the worse again.
It's even worse when you are telling the solo maintainer that this is where its going and they just keep accepting every minor contribution to make people happy and boost them if they can.
It's not a bad idea but it ends with just a huge mess of crap.
The number of times I have been told "oh I talked to so and so and they are having SUCH a good time using X" and then three years later "oh I talked to so and so and they got rid of X as soon as they could, we should switch!"
reply