hourago
Joined 4 years ago
Joined 4 years ago
"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.
Verification was serviceable, now it is harmful. There is a big difference there. Even if formerly was not perfect.
EVERYBODY is "incredibly talented and smart in some ways".
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.
The classical difference between them is money. When a powerful person acted "crazy" the term used was "eccentricity".
Who does that? It looks like an anti-pattern.
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.
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.
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).
A political biased piece that tries to hide behind a wall of very faulty reasoning.
I hope that batteries continue improving like this and other technologies. It is going to be like magic.
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.