From their perspective you're lacking three things: 1) credibility, 2) leverage, and 3) data.
Credibility: you're a technical founder, not a designer. Why would they listen to you?
Leverage: you do not have decision-making power on this point. The other people do not feel their position is at all threatened by your disagreement with their choice, otherwise they would not be handling this situation as they are.
Data: there's no data to support your belief; it's entirely subjective. This isn't like a technical decision where you can discuss tradeoffs like performance metrics. You could try to get data by getting user feedback, but given (1) and (2) I don't think it'd be worth it.
I think your best option right now is to realize your value to the company is not on the design side. If that's something you want to be involved in, then you need to build that credibility gradually (and be able to provide better feedback than simply "it disgusts me").
Google recently deleted the entire account of someone who had videos of vehicles in the Middle East, claiming it was extremist content [0]. He was a historian who was cataloging how vehicles are used and modified in military operations across the globe. But google’s bots (which are probably pretty similar to YouTube’s) classified it as extremist content.
So I disagree with the premise of your argument — that we’d all support the automatic removal of “ISIS propaganda”.
> If she's performing better than them while getting paid the same, she would know that she's worth more
This is another area where pay transparency can complicate things. Jane may have the same experience and education as other employees, but much higher performance and work ethic. Unfortunately, this isn’t easily quantified, whereas the other characteristics are, which can create resentment among her peers who don’t see the other value that she’s providing.
> Perhaps the biggest lingering issue waiting to be fixed is the Windows store. Microsoft has been working on a new app store for Windows in recent months, and rumors suggest it will be a significant departure from what exists today. Nadella has promised to “unlock greater economic opportunity for developers and creators” with Windows, and the Windows store seems like the obvious way to do that.
My greatest concern is that Microsoft will attempt to lockdown their OS the same way Apple and Android have.
That would explain why they would release a new operating system when 10 was supposed to be the last.
They can and they do if you don't file, and they'll charge you 5%/month for the convenience. The IRS can even file a return on your behalf, which they do to tax protestors. If you don't even have an SSN, they'll conveniently create one for you.
This article talks about a program designed to fix the "root" of crime and homelessness. Instead of arresting people, they'd call social workers. "Success" was measured by how many people were arrested and so the program "succeeded" because they responded to 750 calls but didn't arrest anyone. But is arrest really related to how well a program solves the root of the problem?
It seems like a better measure would be something related to their actual goal. So why didn't they measure rate of property crime? Rate of homelessness? Poverty? Drug addiction? Supposedly these are the real causes of crime and homelessness.
If they did actually measure those things, I think their evaluation of the program would be different [0] [1].
>> "Denver saw significant increases in most types of property crime in 2020. In comparison to the average of the previous four years, burglaries rose 23% in 2020, larceny rose 9%, auto theft rose 61% and theft from cars rose 39%, Denver police data shows." [0]
Suppose you're Google. You know what's cheaper than investing $100m in a new chip manufacturing company? Lobbying for the government to invest $100m in the chip manufacturing company.
This is why "the economics don't line up", and "the incentives don't align". No shareholder would want you to do the financially irresponsible thing of investing in a risky, capital-intensive venture when governments can do that for you.
As a result, companies have the incentive to invest in lobbying rather than actually fund the chip production themselves. Essentially the companies believe that chip production will result in $X/yr, but investing in it themselves would be $Y/yr, whereas they could just invest in lobbying for $Z/yr, where $Z << $Y.
The fact that youtubers with a small following and a lack of monetization don’t make any money is not the result of capitalism. Do you believe that a different economic system would actually fund the long tail of entertainers?
The problem is not capitalism, it’s that most of the entertainers are not popular enough to make any money from their viewers, and many still wouldn’t be able to survive if they received 100% of the money YouTube gets. Then where would the money come from? If not their viewers, and not advertising, then who? The government?
It’s not a US or capitalist problem, it’s a simple cash flow problem. Can you imagine the Soviet Union or China funding them? Even the 10,000th van lifer?
If you believe that's the case, perhaps you could provide an example of Scott's writing that shouldn't be allowed, and what you think the consequences should be?
In general citation count is not a useful metric to determine research quality (separate from whether it applies here)
e.g. Brian Wansink's citation count is 33,969 and h-index is 85 [0]. Over a dozen of his papers were retracted after finding statistical anomalies:
"These problems included conclusions not supported by the data presented, data and figures duplicated across papers, questionable data including impossible values, incorrect and inappropriate statistical analyses, and "p-hacking". As of 2020 Wansink has had 18 of his research papers retracted (one twice), seven others have received an expression of concern, and 15 others have been corrected. On September 20, 2018, Cornell determined that Wansink had committed scientific misconduct and removed him from research and teaching activities; he resigned effective June 30, 2019."
D.C., could you explain what part of this judgment you disagree with? Employees should have the right to switch companies and leaving a company shouldn’t bar employment in your field.
Hooked is relying on misrepresentation and vague notions of trade secretes — If there were actual concrete IP theft (or even something like customer lists or proprietary technology) wouldn’t their lawsuit have focused on that?