amurthy1

There are some parallels here to AI coding where even if the AI can write all the code, it's still valuable to have a human who can read and understand the code to verify correctness. The same is true of AI generated math proofs that humans will want to verify are around before they feed them back into the AI and build new insights.

Setting aside this specific case, what is a business supposed to do if a union's demands are unreasonable and make it infeasible to keep the business profitable? If they try and replace the unionized workers, that is frowned upon and in some cases illegal. If they shut down the business due to no longer being viable, that seems to also be legally murky.

If a group of employees wants to band together and collectively bargain, that feels like it should be allowed, but if the company wants to completely sever ties with that group or if an employee wants to be hired and not associated with the group that should also be fine.

I agree that the balance of power is tilted in favor of capital over labor and that imbalance has been continually growing over the past several decades, but it feels like there should be a better solution than legally protected unions. For example:

- Increased relocation assistance for people who need to move for a job

- Improved safety regulations, which is a common reason employees decide to unionize in the first place

- Increased public sector employment to provide more alternatives to those in exploitative private sector jobs

All of these seem like better ways the govt can help workers than legally protected unions.

It happens to a degree in the US with federal research grants, but maybe not to the extent of other countries.

Reminds me of my last job when an unexpected 1% drop in our team's primary goal metric would trigger VPs and directors to have us launch a full investigation into potential causes. But a similar unexpected increase, no one would bat an eye.

Similarly in the stock market, when things are going poorly, people are eager to understand what happened, so a "correction" is a comforting explanation that the underlying asset is still solid and it's just market dynamics at play. But when the stock markets go up unexpectedly, people are generally happy to accept their good fortune without thinking too much about it.

Among other drawbacks, that would interfere with satelites

Increased ridership on roads does increase revenues via gas taxes.

My understanding was Google's rebranding was mainly targeted at investors so that when financials were reported, it would be split out between Google vs. other divisions. It would make sense that most everyday people wouldn't know about this.

FB's rebrand seems targeted to everyday consumers, so I would bet their brand strategy would change to cater to that, in a way that Google/Alphabet never cared to.

The Saudis support US oil interest by for example selling their oil only in dollars and buying US weapons which props up our military industrial complex. This is why the US govt likes them and much of what Americans learn about the middle east is heavily influenced by what the govt puts out.

I think this is a good take, most news doesn't directly affect you but is necessary context to make sense of the news that is relevant to your life

e2e encryption was only added after being acquired. Not sure why FB leadership would undermine the effort that they helped support in the first place

You have a link?

The court of public opinion, even if sometimes unfair, still exists and impacts your business's ability to operate.

By using the carrot instead of the stick, you protect yourself somewhat from these disgruntled employees tanking your public image.

> They also change your behavior in somewhat indirect ways with the goal that you continue to engage with their platform more and more

How is this different than any other kind of media like TV, magazines, newspapers, etc.? All of them are trying to make their product engaging so that you consume more of their media and more of their ads. Just because those services also charge a subscription fee, doesn't change the dynamics of what they're trying to do. Social media has maybe just been more successful in doing so, partially because

> The fact that we bring our phone everywhere, that there are push notifications

So the dynamics have always existed in previous platforms, it's just been ratcheted up to a higher level with social media.

The product they're working on might be super specialized, but oftentimes the skills needed to do the work might not be.