Jorycle t1_jefnm7q wrote

This is unironically what many people seem to have argued when defending TikTok bans and this bill.

Protip guys, "So? China bans our apps" is not the winning argument you seem to think it is.

I didn't even see there are already at least 3 guys in here saying almost exactly that before I hit post.


Jorycle t1_jeda7z9 wrote

Oh man, 30 minutes would be nice. I don't think a 30 minute commute exists in Atlanta, especially if you're actually going into Atlanta. Remote work actually made Atlanta-based tech companies 1000% more accessible for employees because fuck spending 3 hours a day driving in and out of work.

Side note, I immediately think poorly of any tech company that chooses to put their office IN Atlanta instead of the outer metro. Most tech workers are in the suburbs and the drive. fucking. sucks. My rage is boiling just thinking about these fucksticks trying to drive people back into the office BUT PUTTING THEIR OFFICE IN FUCKING ATLANTA.


Jorycle t1_jed9gm9 wrote

Yeah, it's 100% dependent on the company. Some are great at it, others suck. The only real difference is that it is a lot easier for a company to suck at it in remote work, because you're sort of on an island and need people to opt-in to helping you out. In an office, you can go pound on someone's door if it really comes down to it. Seems like it's easier and makes everyone happier if a company just tries to not suck at it.


Jorycle t1_jed962j wrote

>"Work in the office" is just the manager's way of saying they don't understand what you do and have no way to measure your output unless they can constantly look over at your desk and make sure you're not happy.

More like, it's the manager's way of saying "my manager is starting to notice my job serves no purpose when I can't roam the halls like a freak, badgering employees and picking up buzzwords to drop into conversations, and his manager is starting to notice, too."


Jorycle t1_jdsb2o4 wrote

It's weird to see that stuff follow over to other countries. At my old job, 90% of the software team was from India, and at times there was a palpable animosity - eventually it was explained that there were two different castes represented in the team, and the more vocal engineers still took caste very seriously.

(Unclear why this sub's weird downvote train arrived 6 hours later for an innocuous comment, I suspect a brigade is upset about its caste situation.)


Jorycle t1_jcoz1mp wrote

This is an example of why we should've followed the argument of the anti-loan forgiveness crowd. They knew when they deposited their cash that it was either FDIC insured up to 250k or not insured at all. Allowing them to be made whole despite being the cause of the collapse will only embolden fucksticks like this to do the same again.


Jorycle t1_jbt1zzp wrote

Every single thing that has a commercial application is too expensive.

Have you seen the price of fucking chairs?

I'd bet any amount of money that if the world flipped upside down tomorrow and corporations didn't want to buy a single chair to fill their offices, you'd suddenly stop seeing plastic mesh stretched over a plastic core being sold for $800+ dollars.


Jorycle t1_jb93kd4 wrote

In my experience, it seems like companies are trying to do a wage reset after the COVID era made wages livable. Telling anyone my current salary is a good way to get ghosted fast, but just looking at my resume gives an idea that my expected salary is probably going to be on the higher end.

I've also noticed that the jobs in my salary filter have progressively shifted from "senior position" to "CTO/team lead" for the same pay over the last 6-8 months.


Jorycle t1_j9ehrwl wrote

>Sadly also see the entitlement to the lifestyle and income

So wait, you're basing all of this off of some hypothetical rich party bro who's just living up his super cool bonus package? That's really not the typical worker, even if this person does exist.

Plenty of people in these positions are just typical middle class folks. Almost all of the companies at this tier would actually pay me less than I make now, but they claim they'll make up for it with huge stock plans. I'm sure it's a great longer term deal, but I don't work there because I can't pay the bills with stock, especially stock that tends to roll in unvested.

Sure, they make more money than warehouse workers, but the existence of someone getting kicked in the pants harder than someone else doesn't mean they're not also getting kicked in the pants.


Jorycle t1_j86dx1u wrote

Yeah I work in ML and I don't get what the novel discovery is here based on the article. This all just sounds like... what we already know. Like this line:

>"We show that it is possible for these models to learn from examples on the fly without any parameter update we apply to the model."

That's so routine it's not even interesting.

I'm guessing the actual study goes into what was found, I'll have to read it when I have time.


Jorycle t1_j64x7a9 wrote

I feel like I always have to remind about the context of what capitalism considers a "loss":

>While the company remained profitable in 2022

That is, the company didn't have a loss (other than maybe on the shortest scale), they simply didn't make as much money as they wanted or have made previously. They still made more money than they spent.

It's kind of frustrating when companies then start cutting costs and firing employees, too - not because they're at risk of becoming unprofitable, but because they simply want to make more enormous profits.


Jorycle t1_j6116ux wrote

But nothing's stopping him from speaking. We all know what Trump says and does despite not being on these platforms. Platforms like Facebook just said two years ago that they didn't want him speaking in their living rooms, but this didn't stop him from walking into someone else's living room, building his own house to yell in, or just yelling in the street.

Most attempts to equate this stuff to censorship and a free speech thing misunderstand free speech. Free speech isn't just your freedom to say a thing, its also other people's freedom not to hear what you have to say.


Jorycle t1_j610i63 wrote

They said it would be a two year ban and then they'd reassess, and now they've reassessed. I'm wondering what their criteria may be given that he's changed absolutely nothing whatsoever. He is still saying and doing all the same shit, the only thing that's changed is where he's doing it. Facebook must be desperate to get some money to fill their VR money pit.


Jorycle t1_j5q0y7c wrote

I'm not interested in any VR headset until we've fully surpassed the screen door effect. I don't care what else it does, I don't care if they've mostly fixed it. I don't want to hear about it until you're pointing me to a headset I can put on with a 0% chance I can see a pixel boundary. Then we can talk about all these other features I'll never use.


Jorycle t1_iycpw9t wrote

Sure, but it's not about identifying whether an ad was paid for, it's about identifying ads. People are understandably not aware that most of what they see is an ad. Most product reviews are ads. Most "best X" articles are just ads. Most news articles about products are ads. Even on social media, a non-zero number of people's posts are just ads. Some of this is illegal, but even then the consequences are so low that we end up with articles like the above where Google pays next to nothing for the infraction.


Jorycle t1_iybkgx8 wrote

Every company that receives any kind of incentive to boost any product or service or whatever should have to say in big letters "WE WERE PAID TO SAY THIS." Make the fines big enough that companies are afraid of the consequences.

Like 95% of the shit you see on the internet would be plastered with "WE WERE PAID TO SAY THIS."


Jorycle t1_ixczw70 wrote

I'm a huge fan of the move back from Chapek to Iger, but I feel like all of these articles really show how weirdly broken capitalism and our views of corporate wealth are.

Talking about Disney like they were a failing company about to go under. One article before the ouster cried about how to "salvage" Disney - a company that still made a massive profit to the tune of over 3 billion dollars year over year. When anyone refers to losses with this company, they're specifically referring to one segment - which was covered by the other divisions of the company, and even part of the long term plan when they created this division. They saw company revenue grow by 20%, it just wasn't as much growth as they expected. They still made a shit ton of profit.

This is the case with 90% of earnings report news. The US reports corporations' "we didn't make as much money as we wanted" as devastating losses despite being hugely profitable. We recognize this as lunacy in any other form - private small businesses are considered successful if they make even one dime of profit after expenses. You're doing well if you make one dime of money to put in your savings after paying bills and debt.

Fix the US's weird borderline distopian view of corporations.


Jorycle t1_ivjbsu6 wrote

True, but that's still basically just an app, since they're not adding anything new to either the phone or the watch. Seems like a weird money making scheme to me - and money for Apple, since they can petition for even more goofy "Apple watch saved my friend's dog's uncle" ads/articles.


Jorycle t1_itxipbd wrote

So in that specific case I'd say that's kind of silly to worry about. Unless you're a celebrity or have some specific factor that drums up weirdos, no one cares about your address. If somebody wants to be weird to someone, they don't need to find randos on the internet to do it - they can be weird to the multitude of people that live near them. It's not like human beings are a rarity that we need to dox people to track down.

Now personal info that can be used to steal someone's identity, that's another thing and people are always right to worry.