Readit NewsThe endgame isn't more employees or paying them more. It's paying less people or no skilled people when possible.
That's a fairly massive disruption.
I’m happy to answer questions, though I will be dealing with a five-year-old and eating dinner at the same time, which may lead to delayed responses.
There are fundamental issues mapping Biological Evolution to the formation of the universe. Evolution fundamentally works on 'introduce random variations into an environment with selective pressures and/or competition and if that variation produces a change that benefits the animal relative to those pressures and competition, it will more likely survive and reproduce' and that reproduction ultimately is what defines the fitness of that evolution. How does this apply to a uniform CMB, the sudden collapse to make supermassive black holes? The eventual formation of smaller black holes? The formation of planets? The expanding universe? Where is the competition? Where is the reproduction? Where are the selective pressures that define evolution? Where does this show branching and dead branches of evolution's failed attempts.
You repeatedly refer to evolution directing, favoring, having reproductive strategies etc. showing either a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution or a casual use of the terms that will confuse many readers. Evolution is a random and non-directed process. You describe a singular chain of events where those events are just as likely to be random and unconnected but try to imply strongly directed evolution because you approached it with the view that evolution would optimize this process and combined theories that could indicate a more optimized process (while not actually proving that optimization or any form of selection for it).
It fails to address observations backing the existence of dark matter while criticizing existing theories for failing to address observations that do not line up with their predictions.
Beyond that, are any of the predictions you make novel to just your story, or are they ultimately the combined predictions made by the various theories you are basing this on? I didn't see any that did not lead off the existing work that doesn't always require throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Ultimately this feels like a new interpretation combining a number of exciting and new discoveries that make predictions that JW is backing, approaching them with a philosophical view giving potential novel insights, but failing to disconnect the philosophy before engaging actual science and misunderstanding the difference between a good sounding science story and good science while on-boarding a fair amount of personal skepticism and frustration with the existing methods.
Its not to say that some of the theories its based on aren't correct, or that the existing theories aren't problematic, but it certainly feels like its leveraging the predictive power of other theories to do its heavy lifting.
You're not gonna run afoul of Europe's antitrust laws by mere coincidence - you have to be a very big and established player before they become relevant (meaning you should have plenty of room to adapt, should you start to approach the limits specified in their legislation[0]). If you're just a small participant in the market, these laws aren't relevant to you.
Regulatory capture isn't really a risk for these regulations because most companies won't ever become that massive in the first place[0].
[0]: For reference, you need more than 75 billion euros in market value, 7.5 billion euros in profits from EU citizens or alternatively, more than 45 million active end users and more than 10k business customers before the real "big teeth" EU antitrust legislation (the Digital Markets Act) becomes relevant for a company. The overwhelming majority of tech companies aren't even close to being in that position (and almost certainly don't have a market cap that comes close to this), it's pretty much only GAFAM and ByteDance that are in this position.
Honestly we're well past effective anti trust laws but the EU is leading the way at least in many ways at getting back to somewhere sane.
No regulation and too much regulation have terrible impacts, but identifying the middle ground is it's own problem.
VC/private equity requires growth levels that are unsustainable and the focus on that destroys the long term prospects of a lot of companies that otherwise would provide great value and support themselves.
So the ones that game marketing for revenue (badly developed or designed features, overselling, etc) win over those that provide real value.
The "good times" where the era of coasting and doing zero work for a month with a >$300k+ a year SWE web developer job is over.
Now (unsurprisingly) your startup HAS to be profitable and cannot afford to lose money for years with the over-reliance on cheap VC money. For big tech it is not a playground or a day care.
These AI companies are the last reminants of the hype in 2021 and if one of those overvalued companies closes down, then it will cause a 2000 level crash.
There is still room for the tech industry to go down and it requires the AI hype to deflate.
Now that that liquidity is lower, companies are incentivized to cut back excess they created. In many cases they aren't capable of actually determining value by employee, so most of these layoffs are impacting hard working and often critical employees (aka not coasters) that then struggle to find new jobs because both the market conditions and idiotic assumptions about these layoffs actually being performance related.
The performance narrative is literally to reduce the cost of regular layoffs which they now do almost yearly to attempt to inflate stock prices at key times, while not admitting that a fairly significant portion end up being hired back over the next 12 months (boomerangs lmao) to fill the critical holes they created.
The hype in the industry and the shit outcomes aren't the fault of employees but bad leadership and executives caring more about short term profit through deceptive marketing than creating value. And that's why as an employee creating value for a company is no longer enough to justify job security. If you care about value and not profit or margins than you are a coaster these days.
There will be more busts, but the narrative that coasters or entitled employees have anything to do with it is bunk.
Dead Comment
Time to start learning Chinese.
Yes, which is why it's absolutely idiotic to start calling them our enemies after a couple of months of President Trump
We will weather this rocky part of our friendship with America and come through it later
This administration is an enemy to Canada, all Americans are not.
But it shows we need to reevaluate this friendship and move apart going forward.
Frozen water represents a state change and that different state commonly gets its own word: ice/water/steam equates to solid/liquid/gas
Boiling/freezing water represents the state of the liquid, not the transition. Its descriptive. Water boils away into steam, or freezes into ice.
Should we consider luke-warm water also singular? What about body-temperature water? cool water? It makes sense not to treat adjectives/descriptive words combined with the subject as singular because the definition already exists in the root of the words (meaning of adjective word + meaning of subject word). Blue clay is another example, why would that be a singular?
It really only makes sense to me in the rare cases where the combination words represent something different or non obvious than the combined meanings of the two words (i.e to 'give up')