127 karma · joined August 7, 2022
It was not a Ninja edit, just a mistake that I corrected a minute later but I don't know, maybe there's some kind of automatic feed that sends the post out to everyone?
Oh well, I tried.
Clearly TikTok can be a national security issue.
All these comments do not address this at all, and seem to do their best to ridicule a valid concern.
Obviously the issue is that the data from TikTok is required to go to the Chinese government as do the algorithms.
China has clearly benefitted from the West, by all the money and IP that we have given it, by the products we purchase. Now, the Chinese are biting the hand that feeds it, by becoming an ally of Russia. By actively looking to undermine the West. To deny this is to deny reality,unless you are saying all the reports on how the Chinese are doing this is "fake news."
.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/russia-and-chin...
Robert Daly, the director of the Kissinger Institute on China and the United States, at the Wilson Center, in Washington, said “This is a pledge to stand shoulder to shoulder against America and the West, ideologically as well as militarily,”
.
The difference between TikTok and all Chinese apps is that the government essentially owns all companies, whereas in the West, this is not the case. Western governments can only access data from private companies if they have a search warrant.
Furthermore, I believe China will be seeking to invade Taiwan soon, and take over all their chip-making technology. Their population and economy is crashing, so now is the time to invade Taiwan.
To just dismiss these concerns about TikTok out of hand, without any discussion, is clearly wrong.
This entire thread seems like it was written by the CCP sleeper HN users.
.
Also, as noted by trident5000 below, China has access to all USA users of TikTok., but the USA or anyone else doesn't have access to Chinese users of TikTok. That's just one more issue to add on, and I'm sure there are others, too.
Also, for the most part, it does not really apply to highly-paid workers. Is a worker at Google getting paid $350,000 per year, a brain surgeon paid $1,000,000 per year going to "quiet quit?" No. Not only that but these workers get insane benefits - platinum level health insurance, ping ping tables at work, free lunches and dinners, etc.
"Quiet quitting" is what low paid workers are doing. Inflation going up 20% - why aren't businesses paying workers 30% more (have to take out taxes). Business owner/manager - can't afford it? How is that my problem? You are the owner or manager, figure it out. That's YOUR job, that is what YOU are getting paid to do. Raise prices to your customers to give me a 30% raise. You can't, you say? All of your vendors are raising their prices, and you pay them higher rates - why not your employees? If you don't pay, workers should work 30% less. It is capitalism, after all. You pay for what you get. An employee has a 30% pay decrease because of inflation? Guess what, you get a 30% work decrease. It's only cold business logic.
On top of that, these lower paid workers in lower paid industries get shit benefits. The lowest level where they have to pay $12,000 deductibles for health care, for example. And even then, some scumball business owners will only schedule workers 30 hours per week (or whatever it is) for part time work so they don't have to pay benefits at all to those. And the employee is required to get a second job to get 40 hours per week, resulting in more travel time, no health care, etc.
Most workers never "quiet quit", it's always the management's fault. Either for being dicks, or for being incompetent. Management and owners are the "quiet quitters", quitting on their workforce.
And I have always been a proponent of "minimum wage, minimum effort" like for fast food workers, for example. As a counter example, if you go to a high-end fine dining restuarant where the servers are making $110,000 per year with tips, you will get "maximum wage, maximum effort." Again, this is just business logic. Workers are their own business, why should they maximize their income and minimize work to fit what they are paid? They are correct in their actions.
Now, whenever I write something like this, some ignorant person will write, "Yeah, but if you work hard, you will rise in the organization, I'm glad people don't work hard, less competition for me" and sentiments along those lines. There are two wrong assumptions with this, and if you haven't figured them out, then maybe you don't have very business acumen and should not be in management or ownership. They are:
1) you probably have an excellent intelligence, maybe you are going to Stanford or Harvard or MIT - yes, the world is TRULY your oyster, you can effectively do anything with your life. For sure. But you just take this for granted. There are people who didn't graduate from high school, those who were not blessed with the same DNA as you. Twin studies have shown that 50-80% of intelligence is inherited. So don't flaunt your accident of birth that gave you a high IQ. But there's no way someone with lower intelligence, like 90 to your 135, can do what you do. Not possible. Two of my relatives are great teachers, and can't teach some students at all what you can learn in 5 minutes. For example, they told me that some of their students just cannot learn how to add two 2 digit numbers together, no matter how much time they spend with them.
2) It is impossible for every worker that works hard to advance, even if they were all 100% equal. If every single person in a Walmart store, for example worked equally hard in order to become a store manager making $175,000 per year (https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/09/business/walmart-store-manage...), how would all 200 or 300 become the store manager for that store??? You say there are other stores they can be promoted to, well, what if every single store had every single worker working equally hard??? It's just impossible. Walmart has 10,500 stores worldwide, and 2.3 million workers worldwide (https://corporate.walmart.com/askwalmart/how-many-people-wor...) if only 25% of employees worked super hard, that means that there are 575,000 employees worthy of being a store manager. That is a .018 chance of getting to be a store manager, even only taking the most hardest workers. If you look at ALL Walmart workers, that is a .00000043 chance of being a store manager.
Sure, maybe YOU can, because you go to Stanford or Harvard and get a degree in business or operations management or supply chain management. But only because you are privileged to be born with the right genetic code, into the right family.
As an example, here's the executive management team for Walmart (keep in mind Walmart is based in Arkansas). You will see there are not too many high school dropouts:
.
Doug McMillon
President and CEO
BA - business administration - University of Arkansas
MA - business administration - University of Tulsa.
.
Rachel Brand
EVP Global Governance, Chief Legal Officer and Corporate Secretary
BA - University of Minnesota
J.D. - Harvard Law School.
.
John Furner
President and CEO, Walmart U.S
BS marketing management - University of Arkansas.
.
Kelvin L. Buncum
Executive Vice President, Neighborhood Markets, Walmart U.S.
North Carolina - B.S. Electrical Engineering
MBA - Harvard Business School.
.
William White
SVP Chief Marketing Officer
BA Business - Duke University
.
Emma Waddell
SVP Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer
BA Rutgers, MBA - University of South Carolina
.
JP Suarez
EVP, Chief Administration Officer
BA Tufts, JD University of Pennsylvania
.
And so on.
I always look at it as if it is my job to disagree and let anyone know about it who needs to know. In a polite and diplomaitic way, the same as any other conversation.
Not voicing one's thoughts can have a dire effect on a business, a division, a group, and/or an individual.
We are all there to voice our disagreements, it's why we are hired in the first place.
I have never had a boss who didn't want my disagreement, my questions, my thoughts. Not once. I've had a lot of jobs. I guess it isn't impossible to have a boss like that, but I think it would be fairly rare. If it did happen to me, I'd figure it out, and then start applying for new jobs, if it was reasonable and possible. If not, then I'd just STFU and keep my head down.
But, I guess this article is for people who don't feel comfortable with being assertive, but then, to me, that means someone is not assertive in everything, including asking for a raise. In this case, you should honestly go to a therapist who specializes in assertiveness training. Truly. It would be a fantastic investment.
Both men and women should be assertive. Both men and women have problems with assertiveness. And I don't mean to sound sexist, but especially women have problems with this. I personally think that is maybe 60% why women get paid less than men, because men are on a whole more aggressive. Not all, but statistically. I don't have published statistics on this, but I do have a ton of anecdotal stories that indicate at least to me that's the case. I've known extremely assertive women and they make as much money and more than men, and I've known women who are not assertive and miss out on raises. Again, it is the same with men, but I think it's more with women that are like this, for a lot of reasons.
One anecdotal story - I was hired the exact same day as a woman who was better than me at the job, I knew this factually from day 1. No doubt. The hiring guy, the owner, said that after 30 days, he would re-evaluate and if he like our performance, would increase salary. On day 30, I was in front of his desk, and he doubled my pay rate. From $60 to $120 per hour. Not bad. 6 months later, this same woman comes up to me and says, "Did you get a raise? How much?" So I said yes, I asked 30 days after he said to ask, didn't you???" She said no. So that means I was paid 100% more than a woman that was way more qualified than I.
To me, that is her fault that she didn't get paid as much as me, a less qualified man. It would be another man's fault, too, if he didn't ask for the raise. She's a fucking grown-ass woman, am I supposed to do everything for her, double-check all her work and her everything? Is the boss? And, I'm sure as there are stars in the sky, if I did, she or some other woman would come at me with the whole "patronizing" and "mansplaining" stuff if I asked stuff like that..."Oh, you don't think women can do what men do? SEXISM." I KNOW there are some other women who would be there on day 30. But I think most women, and a lot, lot, lot of men just to be rewarded for their work without asking, that the bosses should just pay them more and see their contributions. This is what a child does, they expect mommy and daddy to give them things without asking.
I think that "equal pay for equal work" is not entirely accurate. Sure, some is, maybe 5-10%. But I think the real saying should be "equal pay for equal assertiveness and aggressiveness." It is a fact everywhere I've been - Assertive people make more money. "Equal pay for equal work" is so passive and dependent, like an infant. Man up. Woman up. Open your mouth.
I hope no one sees this as "mansplaining" or "sexist". I WANT women, and men, to get paid their full value by being politely and diplomatically assertive in all areas of life, not just work or income.
I'm writing all of this, because maybe you all (women and men) are much younger than I am and you have never really thought of this in depth. Maybe you have thought about it a little but no one has ever been straight up with you.
So go to a therapist for assertiveness training, if you have problems with being assertive. It's probably the best money and time you'll ever spend.
Also, you can read articles about assertiveness training https://www.google.com/search?q=assertiveness+skills
You can also watch videos https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=assertiveness+s...
And use a therapist.
Do all these things, learn from multiple sources.
Everything else is just variations on that theme. You like Italian food, and this person likes Amish food, well whoop-de-doop.
People make a bigger deal out of Italian food or Amish food or Istanbullian food because what else are ya gonna do? I'm not saying it is good or bad, but I think I pretty much know almost everyone's story. You're born, you do stuff, then you die. And some will go to heaven, most to hell even though they think they'll go to heaven, and we atheists are just going to die.
.
If you like Bill:
All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages. At first, the infant,
Mewling and puking in the nurse’s arms.
Then the whining schoolboy, with his satchel
And shining morning face, creeping like snail
Unwillingly to school. And then the lover,
Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad
Made to his mistress’ eyebrow. Then a soldier,
Full of strange oaths and bearded like the pard,
Jealous in honor, sudden and quick in quarrel,
Seeking the bubble reputation
Even in the cannon’s mouth. And then the justice,
In fair round belly with good capon lined,
With eyes severe and beard of formal cut,
Full of wise saws and modern instances;
And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts
Into the lean and slippered pantaloon,
With spectacles on nose and pouch on side;
His youthful hose, well saved, a world too wide
For his shrunk shank, and his big manly voice,
Turning again toward childish treble, pipes
And whistles in his sound. Last scene of all,
That ends this strange eventful history,
Is second childishness and mere oblivion,
Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.
.
Or if you like your Ecclesiastes:
8 All things are wearisome,
more than one can describe;
the eye is not satisfied with seeing,
nor the ear content with hearing.
9 What has been will be again,
and what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.
10 Is there a case where one can say,
“Look, this is new”?
It has already existed
in the ages before us.
11 There is no remembrance
of those who came before,
and those yet to come will not be remembered
by those who follow after.
I totally agree. There are a few areas where it is still good. Stuff for sale is actually quite good. For example, I got a great microwave oven, almost brand new, for $15.
But everything else is garbage. For example, I go on craigslist to look for an office space, and it is complete and total spammed for Regus, Bannister and other executive office suites. There's utterly no owners renting out space.
The job placements are shit. Everyone is on indeed, or linkedin or anything else.
Advertising...I went to advertise my services a month or so ago on craigslist. I listed multiple times, and all I get is spam from people pretending to be interested. I did that 3 or 4 times before I finally caught on.
It's all really simple when we finally get that going.
This is humorous
I thought it was so cool to learn cursive. It was like the first step towards belonging to the adult world.
And like most people, I do most of my communications on the computer.
But, for me, there's nothing like the tactile feelings of writing in cursive on a piece of paper. The soothing flow of the pen, the feel of the roughness or smoothness of the paper on the side of my hand, the smell of the ink and of the paper, the impression or indentation on the paper.
I just adore writing in the cursive script on paper.
I always wish that I was able to do construction/trades stuff.
The few times I've tried, even on the easiest of easy stuff, it's a disaster. Know one's strengths, know one's weaknesses. One has to play to one's strengths.
But if I could, I most surely would do something in the trades.
Just use an analogies. Analogies are best, even if they are not 100% accurate, which I guess is the point of analogies - to use something one knows to illustrate a new concept.
To explain, I would tell them that the analogy I'm giving is not exact, but a way to get a general idea. So for quantum fields, one possible way is to explain it like an ocean. I would say that a quantum field can be understood as an ocean that covers the entire universe but too small to see, just like atoms. But it's still there. And, there are 24 of these oceans all overlapping each other, for each type of field, like one for electrons, one for the photons, etc. A photon comes into existence in this ocean when it is excited, similar to a wave on an ocean. This means that there is no such thing as "empty space" or a complete vacuum, it is impossible, the quantum fields permeate everything everywhere.
That's pretty simple to understand, even for a 10-year-old.
Maybe there are better analogies. I'm just using this as one such example, showing how to explain a topic, rather than the topic of quantum fields specifically, although the explanation above does that, too.
On youtube, there are great videos that show how this is done, just search on "explain in 5 different levels of complexity". I think you will be fascinated! :)
Here is the search results for it in youtube: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=explain+in+5+di...
From a business perspective, who is more intelligent, the person who pays $350,000 to get a degree from Harvard or Colombia (regardless of if they get grants or don't pay because of income levels), or if someone purposefully goes to something like in California public universities where residents can go to a local community college for 2 years to get the general education out of the way either for free (parents make less than about $40K/year) up costs to about $2000 or so for 2 years, then go to California State University where tuition is $11,500 for 2 years, and get a degree for about $13,000-ish for 4 years. Room and board - you can go to a university in your area for free if you live with parents. If not, there are many super inexpensive areas in California, believe it or not. You can get a share rentals for $400/month. Not the big metro areas, of course, but places like Bakersfield, Humbolt, Fresno, Stanislaus, Chico state universities.
Didn't someone who got a business degree for $13,000 show better business skills than someone who paid $350,000 for essentially the same exact thing? Same thing, because take macro-economics, for example. Let's get real. How much better is an macro-ecomics class going to be at Harvard than any other low-cost public university, or a community college? There's no way Harvard students in that class are going to learn that much more. A community college can even use the same exact textbook as Harvard for their students.
Getting a degree for the lowest amount possible should be the very first criteria to evaluate anyone you are going to hire, or person whose company a VC is going to fund. If someone pays $350,000 for a 4 year degree when they could have gone to a public university where the public pays for part of the educational costs, those $350,000 tuition people are not qualified for making business decisions. Stanford grads...good bye. Harvard or other ivy leagues...see ya.
Also, everyone knows you go to those schools for "contacts" so that's not an argument. I'm talking about when a business evaluates a prospective hire or a VC company funding a person, not "contacts".
What do you think? Is the person paying $350,000 for a business degree, or $13,000 for a business degree - which decision is a better business decision, given that two people are about the same in talent?
>You want to frame mockery of and complaints about men as hate speech. It may be many things, but it's not hate speech.
The United Nations defines it as: "In common language, “hate speech” loosely refer to offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics - such as race, religion or gender - and that may threaten social peace."
So...hate speech is offensive discourse targeting based on inherent characteristics, such as gender/sex.
Speech is violence, and this type of speech is violence against men, who are a class of people. And for sure the speech against men is offensive at the least.
If I were to say similar things to any group, except for men, I would be universally condemned.
Donald Trump was all about mockery and complaints and he has whipped up a whirlwind of scary stuff. It was all based on mockery and complaints. From that, he did bring it to the next level, but it started at the beginning as mockery - like when he mocked the man in a wheelchair, or mocked John McCain for being captured in Vietnam, and a hundred other examples.
>Pointing out the foibles, follies, and fuckups of men is not fostering violence.
That is your opinion. And furthermore, I compare that against why the same thing does not happen against women. Why not "woman-nagging" and "toxic femininity" and "women's-purse-and-other-junk-they-carry-spreading"? If the media and men started labeling women like this with diparaging terms, the world would screech to a halt and there would be weeks of articles and the entire media would have to go into a self-flagellating penance for years.
>This is has been a man's world, after all.
This has nothing to do with anything. You are changing the subject. If you want to argue that point, I will do that, but let's finish up with the point at hand first.
>Dressing up hostility itself as "just a joke" doesn't count, but I'm not seeing that in the modern culture you deplore.
Yes, the people who are the perpetrators often don't see things that the victims see.
Men are dropping out of society because of social disparagement of men. Men are dropping out. 60% of university graduates are women and I've read that is supposed to to to 70-75% in 15 years or so. Women have earned 10,000,000 more degrees than men.
Anyways, I just wanted to point out all these things. I'm sure you understand what I'm saying. No disrespect or being argumentative intended, it is just my viewpoint, and I'm going to stop here. If you don't agree, we'll just have to agree to disagree. And maybe some time in the future what I say might "click in" and you will gain some understanding for the other side.
Good luck you you and best wishes.
For example, I personally think "toxic masculinity," "mansplaining," "patriarchy," showing men as stupid foolish and incapable in movies and tv shows, and all the rest of the anti-male bashing is hate speech. However, I'm shouted down every time I say one word about this on any online forums. That's because the matriarchy that we live in does not allow me to define those terms as hate speech. There's no corresponding "toxic femininity," "woman-nagging," "matriarchy," or showing women as stupid and inept. Well, there might be a few on either side, but the vast majority of hate speech is piled upon men.
As you say, the switching cost is way too high and dangerous. They moved billions and billions of dollars daily through a highly complex structures and complex laws in different jurisdictions across the USA. The business logic was built over the 40 years when the world was DOS. It's not like they are dumb and don't know linux or Windows exist and all that.
They brought in huge consulting companies all the time to see if they could get it upgraded, but no programming house, no consulting company would touch it. These consulotants turned down hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars, because 1) it was just too f-ing complex, and 2) if they messed up, the liability would be immense because of the dollars daily transactions, and what the dollars were used for. It would be an absolute shit-show of the first order if things were to go sideways. I'm positive that these consulting companies E & O (errors and ommissions) insurance company would refuse to insure them. Doing it wrong would be catastrophic on a corporate, but also national level. It would not be a matter of some stick-it notes from 3M not getting to the stores on time, or shoes getting to the shoe stores.
So, DOS in 2020.
If someone goes through some other incubator or program, it doesn't count? Like, you could get an MBA from Harvard, PhD is astrophysics from MIT, win the Nobel Prize at 18 years old, start a company and make $800 billion dollars, and you still won't be a "credible tech founder®"? I'm just trying to understand this here. YC is the only font of "credible tech founderhood®"?
Wow. I happen to have $1.86 million in cash in my wallet right now, but not $2 million. I guess I can by that home in SF today. Lucky me.
But seriously, when do you think the property value will fall 95% so that I can buy a house in SF?
John - this is for sure not true. I've known a lot of business owners that work a straight 9-5 and have done VERY well. Not Facebook, but $300,000-$400,000 per year, that's top 1% earners.
I know a LOT of business owners that come in one day per week to check on how their team is doing.
This whole "24/7 work" is just a load of nonsense. Do some? Sure. But we all have a choice, and I know as an actual fact so many people that are successful do not do that. For a fact. And, I know people in the exact same industry, don't pretty much the exact same thing, that work 18 hours per day. Usually the one working 8 hours per day is wealthier, because generally, the person who works 8 hours per day is organized and prioritized, and the person working 18 hours a day is unorganized, doesn't know what they are doing, can't prioritize, etc.
So, John, it is just not true. I urge you, if you are starting to run your own business, not to fall for that false god of working 8 days a week, 48 hours per day. I don't care what Elon Musk or anyone else says.
So again, if I were you, I would say to work 9-5 and then when you are done, leave the business at your office, come home and do other things. It's ok, really.
Starting a business does NOT entail what you think it entails. Heck, even someone building a nuclear power plant, all the workers and CEO don't work 18 hours per day.
>This is very different from some sort of bland "do what you love" thing.
I don't think so. Do what you love is at the root of all of the whole work 18 hours a day thing.
>This is recognizing the human truth of what starting a business entails.
I know what starting a business entails. I've started many. A lot of what people say is just simply not true. I've read the same exact things as you have, about how one has to work 24/7 and live and breath it every day. No. I know this is not the case, I've seen it personally. Reality is what you make it. If you say reality is working 18 hours a day, that's what you're going to do. If you say it is 8 hours a day, that is what it will be. And both can succeed, have succeeded. I've seen it, in person.
Right. Me too. If a government bans it, like USA or Australia or whatever, then that's that. Sure you can still use it, but you can also not stop for stop signs or you can sell meth or you can not pay income taxes. And maybe never get caught. But if you DO get caught....
"Don't do the crime if you can't do the time."
- Detective Tony BarettaI've got around many a ban by just switching out my computer and getting a new internet connection.
Just curious.