Corporations are valued on growth not on sales. Any idea to grow will be evaluated over just keeping a good product.
This is why companies are betting billions on crazy ideas while their products just become worse year to year.
A CEO that says, we will keep this ship floating will be fired the next day. CEOs are selected on how much grow they promise to bring and deliver to do.
Until this changes things are just going to be getting worse, more expensive and more bloated. And there is no enough competition to create a counter to it.
> I don't know why it's so important to have puritan output
"Puritan" is quite a charged word, can you give examples of what kind of content do you think the article refers to? They talk about "harmful" content, on the other side.
Ironically, all these will be solved by raising everybody 3% and that's it. By trying to measure individual performance, the company is taking away time from their employees. And the ones that end up getting the rise are the best ones at doing reviews, not at doing the job.
I prefer that everybody gets the same raise, and that the company pays competitive salaries. To spend so much time justifying your own job for a company that is making a lot of profits makes little sense.
> Choosing to enjoy life today instead of waiting for tomorrow for that enjoyment isn't a failure, it's a choice. It comes with risk and tradeoffs.
That dichotomy is not always true. There is a percentage of people that can enjoy their youth (travel, parties, ...) and still get a plentiful future. Other people needs to renounce to everything now just to survive to tomorrow. So, not always a choice there.
> Though there may be examples of opportunistic or anti-competitive behaviour, the effects are unlikely to have been material.
So, there is prove that it is anti-competitive behavior. There is prove that all big corporations should be split in pieces. But The Economist decides to ignore that.
The Economist is not that bad. At least, it presents the data. Big monopolies are the source of inflation, the lack of competition is the source of inflation. But it always falls short to get to any reasonable conclusion, and decides to ignore its own data. That's a shame.
A lot of people angry here because they are not allowed to discriminate based in actually protected classes like gender. It seems that the hiring manager just wants to make sure that the potential employee is not going to discriminate against other employees. A very reasonable position.
I see many people arguing "to include racists is also diversity" a sentence that may be grammatically correct but it is meaningless when it comes to semantics.
The country laws, the company leadership, the hiring manager. That are the people and mechanisms that define what is appropriate or not for a job. (More people and more levels of legality may be involved).
All the argument is "do not judge people by their politics", and then it dedicates a lot of words to judge people by their politics. It is not just ironic but nonsensical.
A political biased piece that tries to hide behind a wall of very faulty reasoning.
I remember this kind of news for tech like hard disks. Day to day it felt that this improvements do not matter but that 20MB hard disk became 100MB then 400MB. It was exciting to see 1GB, it seemed impossible. Now you have for granted 1,000,000MB SSD super-fast high-capacity hard disks.
I hope that batteries continue improving like this and other technologies. It is going to be like magic.
How is it different that the page linked in the article? I do not see why that page is so bad, it looks like an average page from a book with a linked index at the top.
By the author's metric is even worse to read a book. If you are looking for the exact answer to your exact code maybe that is the problem.
To get free training so you can solve your problem yourself and understand the overall situation seems a very good deal. The example to complain about seems very badly chosen.
I think that Google is getting worse and that advertisements in webpages should be regulated. But to complain that you are being taught to fish instead of given a fish seems too entitled.
> No, we are awash in labels already and I am sick of everything having a legal treatise attached to it. Labels just throw the problem back in the laps of consumers, an approach which clearly does not work.
Some labels are good and informative. Some labels are just a way for corporations to blame consumers for what consumers cannot do anything about.
Falsehood:
- "Consumers are purchasing toxic products, so that is what we make."
Reality:
- "Consumers buy what is available and they can afford."
> In academia, it’s almost impossible to say “no” to a senior faculty.
That is so strange. In the corporate world it is always easy and straightforward to say no to higher ups. They always accept a no gracefully.
/S
In my experience, the best organization are the ones that are willing to get bottom up feedback. The more feedback is accepted and acted upon, the best is the organization. None gets it 100%, most are just half good at it.
> do the right and scientific thing and ruin my future in academia, or do what my peers are doing and make senior faculty like me.
Look for a middle ground. Do not make things worse if you cannot make them better. You will get small wins and wins will become bigger with time. And remember how it felt so you do not repeat the same behavior when you are at the top.
Sometimes, there are reason why things are like they are. Try to change the system instead of change people.
Corporations are valued on growth not on sales. Any idea to grow will be evaluated over just keeping a good product.
This is why companies are betting billions on crazy ideas while their products just become worse year to year.
A CEO that says, we will keep this ship floating will be fired the next day. CEOs are selected on how much grow they promise to bring and deliver to do.
Until this changes things are just going to be getting worse, more expensive and more bloated. And there is no enough competition to create a counter to it.