Spaceman Spiff

  • 0 Posts
  • 23 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 14th, 2023

help-circle








  • Possibly. I’m not entirely sure how to interpret that part.

    One plausible scenario is that they brought in a consultant, who said their data would be worth $XXXX on the open market. A common element of MBA thinking is that any potential profits are something you are entitled to, regardless of the consequences. It’s also pretty clear they don’t have a mature management team, or a viable path to realize those profits. But they had to stop someone else from getting it, so there was a rushed decision. I don’t quite know how it coincided with killing 3rd party apps, though, unless it was just more really incompetent management.





  • It’s because of the very impassioned speech by then-Senator Ted “Tubes” Stevens, where he demonstrated that he clearly had no idea how any of it worked. You could hear the lobbyists in every bit that he parroted, without absorbing it. He also had formed a strong opinion already, despite clearly having just been told how it works.

    It’s not that it’s a bad analogy. It’s that it’s (somewhat) reductionist, and most famously associated with an idiot.


  • That’s pretty likely, given how many have left in the past year, and it’s possibly a very big problem for Meta. Apple in their early days infamously asked candidates if they were “virgins”. It was not (as Hollywood likes to portray) about their sexual history, but whether they had ever touched or seen IBM’s proprietary code. Apple needed to do a clean-room development and implementation of the same thing. They knew IBM would sic the lawyers on them, and they had to prove they did it using nothing but publicly available info.

    The article has absolutely no detail on what these trade secrets might be, or if they will be upheld in court, so we can only speculate. But if these really are trade secrets, and Meta poached them, then we could be talking serious damages or even an injunction.

    But knowing the courts, this won’t actually be decided for years and it won’t even matter by then





  • There’s a wide spectrum of responses people can have to a breakup. Anger to the point of violence is naturally low in most modern societies, but it does exist.

    When you have that breakup moment in person, you force a lot of emotions to flood them all at once. Often, they thought things were going well. This creates a strong sense of rejection, hurts their self-esteem, and puts them immediately on the defensive. It can also trigger a fight-or-flight response, and manifest as anger.

    Ghosting flattens the curve. Over the course of days or weeks, the ghostee more gradually recognizes and comes to terms with the fact that the ghoster is no longer interested in them. This often happens without there being a flashpoint moment to set them off.

    It’s still rude, but I absolutely see the value in it


  • Face to face is not only unnecessary, but often counter-productive. You aren’t likely to just already be at the same place, so one or both of you must travel to the agreed upon meeting place, just to deliver the bad news. It also often forces an unwanted and pointless conversation, and draws out what may be a painful subject for both people. And this assumes that it goes well- others have mentioned the risk of violence, extreme emotional distress, etc.

    I (generally) oppose ghosting, but it can be done remotely.