throwaway92715 t1_j89p5xp wrote

Dude I'm telling you, every time we talk about AI...

It's like you say, "AI is basically just orange"

And someone says "Uhh no, you clearly don't know how AI works, it's actually an orange inside an orange inside an orange"

And you're like "Yeah, so it's a fucking orange"


throwaway92715 t1_j6pjag1 wrote

Is that really the worst part? These people make ridiculous amounts of money. If I were a major shareholder in Google, I wouldn't want to pay all that extra.

Not gonna lie, from outside the industry, unemployed tech workers sound like spoiled children to me. And when they start referring to themselves as "the workers," it legitimately makes me angry.

These are the people gobbling up homes across the country for 2x what the locals can afford. Their salaries are going down? GOOD! Let them go down A LOT FURTHER.

I've never seen a good justification for why FAANG salaries are so high other than "supply and demand," so now that they're falling and people are getting laid off? "Supply and demand."


throwaway92715 t1_j5dsoju wrote

The difference in hospitality is that if you and your team do a really good job, the restaurant might double its profits for a night. In tech, if you and your team hit it just right, your firm could qualify for nine figures of progressive funding and IPO with a multibillion dollar market cap, catapulting the owner's wealth into the 0.01%. Guess which one is gonna pay six figures.

A restaurant is limited by the size of its kitchen, the number of seats, local demand, parking... A tech company is not nearly as limited by scale factors like that.

Tech companies are usually limited by their high risk of failure, but that risk is mainly held by the investors, not the owners and employees. If you can get funding, you can pay yourself gravy for as long as it lasts, as long as you don't violate a contract or screw yourself some other way.

Some are just grifters who are bluffing. Others really are potential billionaires with brilliant ideas. It's a gamble. People gamble when they're flush with cash, and the upper class in the US has been for awhile.


throwaway92715 t1_j26wiod wrote

Technology is pretty much the only reason why human beings were ever able to rise to the top of the food chain. It's not just Americans.

If we'd never evolved brains powerful enough for us to start using tools to protect ourselves from starvation, disease, predators, the elements, etc... we'd still be cowering in caves and getting eaten by mountain lions.

If we hadn't continued that to develop agriculture, navigation, weapons, architecture, etc. well we probably would've just gotten our asses whooped by another group of humans who did. Which... actually happened to many groups in history.

Computers and shitcoins are just the continuation of that same evolutionary trend.


throwaway92715 t1_iy2atkj wrote

Honestly none of that makes any sense. Because even if being fat allowed you to mature faster and pass on your genes quicker, you would not be able to run fast enough to keep up with your potential mates. Unless the individual was able to somehow keep their sperm in a chilled storage unit of some kind, there is no way that they would ever be able to deliver on that promise. So, evolutionarily speaking, they would likely not be able to protect any children they had from mountain lions. It is more likely the case that the corellation between BMI and reproductive success came about during the Ice Age, when it was very cold and extra layers of fat were needed to survive the winter.