> In the memo, Shah said employees should be prepared to work longer hours and not be afraid to let work impinge on their personal lives.
I wonder what executives should prepare for. Presumably continuing to contribute nothing of discernible value. Probably what comes when you treat humans like fungible work units to their face without even the pretense of viewing them as human.
> States can make bad calls in the short term but you’ll often find they are rational decisions regardless of if they don’t turn out well.
This line of reasoning only makes sense when compared with counterfactuals, which seems like a waste of everyone's time. It's easy enough to justify an arbitrary action as rational if you have no basis of comparison.
Anyway, "rational self-interest of the state" is not the same thing as "rational". There are other ends other than self-interest of the state—for instance, self-interest of the constituents of the state, or self-interest of humanity. All states put their own existence before the welfare of their people. A state is not a natural thing outside the vying of capital to institute economic stability for the ends of its own empowerment.
Well, it's impossible to say without the opportunity to experiment. It's certainly difficult to believe nobody would take advantage of this if they could.
Many single-unit family home neighborhoods do not have an HOA—people just get along or take their concerns to the town itself. I mostly associate HOAs with suburbia.
If you don't have an HOA, consider not leaf blowing or raking at all. There's not much point and local insect populations probably need them to weather winter.
This just straight up doesn't make sense to me—states aren't monolithic entities or rational actors. I think it's easier to say that the modern state exists at the behest of capital, at least in the west.
Ads (along with nazis and pedophiles) are the root of almost all issues on the internet and it looks like a very bleak future if we can't build an alternative form of compensation into our protocols. I don't understand why we can't at least outbid the advertisers for our own attention.... what a waste of time and money and attention and culture all around.
> The whole field has been referred to as AI for decades
Yea, everyone else has been laughing at you for this the whole time. It's a dumb term for anything but encouraging rubes to fork over cash for stuff that looks like magic.
> Referring to the things used here as AI is entirely consistent with how I've seen the term used dating back beyond when people would ask me if AI was to do with aliens. Simpler things have been called AI in the public sphere too, so it's not a new thing being sprung on people.
Maybe you should consider communicating more directly and effectively.
> I don't think people have generally been confused by a camera that says it has AI thinking it's sentient.
You should talk to more people. This is 100% a problem.
> I'm not so keen on forcing successful businesses to ruin themselves
I don't really have a problem with that if they can't play nicely with others. Businesses come and go. But ultimately companies need some incentive to not fuck over the consumer, and "forcing successful businesses to ruin themselves" strikes me as a better option than fines at this point.
This just means private market. There's nothing special about the term "platform" that changes the feudal nature of this. The tenants compete but the operator has coerced exclusion on collecting its tax. This private market has a single operator offer access on non-negotiable terms against which no other entity is able to make a competing offer. If that's not a monopoly, it's certainly far worse to everyone but the owner of the market.
I chose to buy a device, it's mine. What on earth are you doing meddling with what i do with it, apple? Your taste in apps sucks ass and you charge the poor app developers 10x the value you provide. Being forced to use the appstore actively lowers the value of my phone.
I don't appreciate this attempt by large corps to just rewrite the meaning of ownership and markets without giving us any of the benefits of a world without property or a centralized marketplace. The people here who defend it disgust me.
How is this not straightforwardly a vertically owned market with full price controls to which we can only rent space at exorbitant cost and little return compared to an public market?
We all know the reason: it drives profits and our index funds. Nobody wants to kill the golden goose, even if that represents us all getting collectively sold up river. Which should remind you of about a thousand other problems this country faces.
TBH as an app developer myself I'd far prefer an option to publish and make transactions outside of Apple's purview than any kind of concern about piracy or meddling.
> Or because those two companies created those platforms. I don't see why they owe it to other companies to lower their prices.
It's up to us to make them give us better tools for us. This isn't a natural thing that just happens. I don't give a damn which company succeeds in the end so long as the consumer is fairly represented.
I wonder what executives should prepare for. Presumably continuing to contribute nothing of discernible value. Probably what comes when you treat humans like fungible work units to their face without even the pretense of viewing them as human.