Your position hinges on the survey not being anonymous. I clicked through and found nothing that claims it was not anonymous, and these things are normally done anonymously for exactly the reason you point out: less honesty.
Do you have anything to back this up or is it simply that holding this belief helps confirm what you already believe to be true?
That links says only a quarter did it because they wanted people to quit, so it suggests that chances are this is not the reason Amazon is doing it…and you’re posting while claiming it factually proves this is their motivation? Pretty deceiving.
Because the CEOs are all more concerned with the commercial real estate market than running their company efficiently.
It’s shocking how many people have honestly bought this. I mean, I’m sure there is some truth to it and maybe somewhere, someone forced people to come back because of some real estate interests… But the CEO of Amazon almost certainly gains to benefit much more from a rise in price of Amazon stock than any real estate they might own. And even if it was the case, I dont think the board would be very happy about it.
It might be the wrong move, and maybe it is being done to get people to quit, but it’s being done because they think it means more money from Amazon.
I love posters who announce they are blocking you. Such a good person that they’ve gotta get that last dig in. Lol
They’ve been calling it for basically the last whole war.
In fact, it’s been done pretty masterfully by not making one huge step, but small steps where no single one would force him to do something, but just over time each small step eventually gets to the point where he said he would have to do something…and hasn’t.
Im not one to say you can never speak ill of the dead, but man to bash someone right after they die among a group of people that likely includes his friends requires a special type of social cluelessness, or straight up being a bad person.
No one in the military
Okay, but is the person still an officer? I mean, it is in the name. The way I see it, as a layman, it is kind of hard to ding the author for getting this wrong when they are technically correct and a laymen would consider them an officer, and the only real complaint is that colloquially military members don’t refer to them as officers.
What am I missing or wrong about?
Their framing of how AI works is grossly inaccurate. I just corrected that.
I’m with you. I’m a Senior software engineer and copilot/chatgpt have all but completely replaced me googling stuff, and replaced 90% of the time I’ve spent writing the code for simple tasks I want to automate. I’m regularly shocked at how often copilot will accurately auto complete whole methods for me. I’ve even had it generate a whole child class near perfectly, although this is likely primarily due to being very consistent with my naming.
At the very least it’s an extremely valuable tool that every programmer should get comfortable with. And the tech is just in it’s baby form. I’m glad I’m learning how to use it now instead of pooh-poohing it.
I never said anything about leaving ai unregulated. I never said anything about being frustrated. And its likely you asking for laws to be changed, not me.
I’m not even sure you’re responding to my post.
Because what they are describing is just straight up theft, while what I describes is so much closer to how one trains and ai. I’m afraid that what comes out of this ai hysteria is that copyright gets more strict and humans copying style even becomes illegal.
I think AI training is very different from piracy. I’ve never downloaded a mega pack of songs and said to my friends “Listen to what I made!”
I’ve never done this. But I have taken lessons from people for instruments, listened to bands I like, and then created and played songs that certainly are influences by all of that. I’ve also taken a lot of art classes, and studied other people’s painting styles and then created things from what I’ve learned, and said “look at what I made!” Which is far more akin to what AI is doing that what you are implying here.
They need to be maximally broadly appealing? That sounds like capitalism to me.
“broadly appealing” means “human nature.” This is my point. Capitalism is just a good system to figure this out. You want stuff that appeals to you, as do I. But that stuff is boring to most other people. Most people like this drivel, unfortunately. You just want a system that caters to you, and your niche interests (ones we likely share, BTW). You just want the stuff you want on what is available to the broad public. . . .But why is that fair to the majority?
And you know what? With things like youtube, podcasts, and streaming (all thanks to capitalism, BTW), all of that is available to you. Just not on inappropriately named cable stations. Why do you care? Do you even get cable? Who does anymore? Even my pre-boomer dad has cut the cord.
Don’t get me wrong. Capitalism certainly has it’s faults. There are certain things, like policing, fire protection, and health care, that simply don’t fit into the mold of capitalism well. Even as a well off American, I’m all for strong socialism for many things, like what we see in Europe.
I just find the concept that “these aren’t the original intent of the channels. . .what a failure of capitalism!” to be kind of funny. Who really cares?
Capitalism just takes advantage of human nature. That’s why it has clearly been the most successful system, at least as a starting point, for the overall well being of a nation.
The issue with these channels is that most people just don’t give a fuck about the information. They want to be entertained. Capitalism is just good system that enabled that to be figured out.
Your issue is not with capitalism, but human nature.
But there are letters on ABC.
Checkmate, atheists.
Check out their profile, it’s quite literally their only schtick.
Sounds like something an idiot would brag about.
I think it’s fair to call The Useful Idiot a victim.
We need more people like you.
Simply reading the article would reveal how ludicrously incorrect your argument is.