namingthingsiseasy

Two simple words: digital sovereignty.

Hopefully this serves as another case in the push for the EU[0] using native alternatives instead.

[0]: Not just the EU of course. Any non-American company should see dependency on Microsoft as a liability. I hope all countries around the world see this as a warning of things that could happen to them.

why is it a bad idea that studenst get some tools, free of charge, that they are free to use

I can't find it right now, but there was a quote from a long time ago by Bill Gates where he basically said that it was fine if people were using Microsoft's products for free because it would get them "addicted". They would rather have people use Microsoft products even for free if it would prevent them from using alternatives.

That's why it's harmful. It's free for students in the short term, but it prevents them from learning how to use an alternative product that will most certainly be free for them to use forever. Students waste those years when they have a chance to learn something useful, and instead get hooked on proprietary tools that will most certainly fuck them over at some point in the future.

The best part of all of this is that now Pichai is going to really feel the heat of all of his layoffs and other anti-worker policies. Google was once a respected company and place where people wanted to work. Now they're just some generic employer with no real lure to bring people in. It worked fine when all he had to do was increase the prices on all their current offerings and stuff more ads, but when it comes to actual product development, they are hopelessly adrift that it's pretty hilarious watching them flail.

You can really see that consulting background of his doing its work. It's actually kinda poetic because now he'll get a chance to see what actually happens to companies that do business with McKinsey.

An AI has a much better chance of actually providing some sort of vision for the company. Unlike its current CEO.

I assume you're trying to imply in your comment that people are not going to use it if it's not easy.

It's unfortunate, but sometimes, having nice things can be a little hard. If people want to use the easiest thing under the sun, then they'll just have to accept the downsides that come with it. Sometimes, that means private companies will use private photos of people's underage children in AI training models that can generate deepfake pornography. What can you do? Convenience comes at a cost sometimes.

I'm not saying I agree with this of course, but that's just how things are in the world where all rules must follow the dollar.

Well of course, that's true of any and all publicly accessible data. At least with self-hosting, your private channels still don't get mined against your wishes

This is quite cool and a very interesting read. I'm not sure if it's something I would want to use in a real project, because it looks like you're basically inventing a new language within Python's type system itself, which is a little weird. That said, I feel like I learned a lot from reading this, and it was a very interesting demonstration of what you can do with Python's type-checking system.

Sure, fair points. We should distinguish good and bad managers here before we get too specific. The bad managers will do whatever they're told to do by upper management. Upper management just says "cut down to this number" and they do it because they only care about their own incentives and don't care about the consequences. The good managers will probably realize the downsides of these decisions and will try their best to blunt the impact of these decisions. But in the end, they still have to report to higher levels of management, so there's little that they can ultimately do. So they're probably going to end up doing the same thing anyway.

This is why management is such a hard position, especially in the lower levels. You're basically at the end of the chain and usually have little power to get what you want. At the same time, you still have to make lots of different groups happy - upper management, your workers and whoever you're delivering your product for. All the things that you listed are things that I'm sure they would like to have, but probably end up having to get sacrificed anyway. If there's only one group of people that you're going to please, chances are that it's going to be the people you report to.

Nothing matters more than the quarterly earnings report. If that's what it takes, so be it!

Everyone in this thread is saying that this comes as no surprise, and that is certainly true. But the thing is, a lot of management types do know this already but they simply don't care for two reasons:

1. They care more about leverage/control over employees than they do about actual good work being done. You cannot understate at all how important employee control can be for managers and how seriously they're willing to destroy their own business to keep this kind of power.

2. RTO is basically a layoff program. As much as I love working remotely, it's very important to keep in mind that remote workers are the first ones that will get laid off when the business wants to cut back - purely because of how easy it is to do. They can just mandate RTO without actually calling it a layoff and know many workers will outright quit, and the business won't have to comply with whatever local regulations are in place around layoffs. Still, this shouldn't sound like comfort for employees that do work in the office - there's a good chance that once RTO is in place, another round of layoffs will strike when the company doesn't meet its cut targets. So any time a business announces return to office, it means that there's a good chance that layoffs will follow too.

tl;dr: Managers knew this would happen all along too - it was just a trade they were very willing to make.

Agreed. It's really hard to understate how ineffective "voting with your wallet" can be. The fact is simply that nobody honestly cares. Even if you get 100 people to boycott a company, would 100 out of millions of consumers really make a difference? Of course not.

And of course, you always have cases like this where everybody does it. Same thing goes for TVs - if everyone spies on you, the only real solution is to not have a TV. Yes, I know there are exceptions here and there, but bad practices like these force buyers into making compromises that they shouldn't have to. Capitalism should be predicated on companies offering the best product to earn their income. It should not be about companies having the least bad product and trying every terrible thing that they can get away with.

(Of course, we all know that capitalism is a farce.)

Honest question here: what would stop me from starting a video, then pausing it and walking away from my computer for several hours so youtube plays ads to no one?

Now repeat but with several tabs.

And bonus points if the videos simply happen to be mine and I were to enable monetization on them.

Hmmm....