1,182 karma · joined March 12, 2023
I wish the article would've been able to break down the amount of people that they wanted to hire in each area. I would think that if they're trying to break Anthropics momentum in business, they'd be hiring a lot of salespeople.
I think that it's more along the lines of "do you fire people" instead of just "do you fire devs". Fewer devs means less of a need for PMs, so they can be let go as well, and maybe with the rise of AI assisted design tools, you don't need as many UX people, so you let some of them go as well.
As for building better products, I feel like that's a completely different topic than using AI for productivity gains, but only because at the end of the day you need buy in from upper management in order to build the features/redo existing features/both that will make the product better. I should also mention I'm viewing this from the position of someone who works at an established company and not a startup, so it may differ.
Anti-corruption pushes in the government are 100% purges, just under a different name. As for Jack Ma, wasn't he targeted because he said something that the censors really didn't like all while pushing some finance app? My memory is hazy as to why it happened, but it certainly wasn't because he was wealthy.
This is a flat out lie. You absolutely could buy health insurance without being at a company.
As long as branding is important, you're going to keep getting slightly different dropdowns. In fact, you could argue that in a front end world that's dominated by AI written code that pulls from standard libraries, branding and all its different dropdowns become more important than ever.
Do people often pretend that they're going to move? Seems like a weird thing to say.
Why does this matter? I hear this a lot but at the same time I look at what's coming out of China, especially in the AI space, and it's clear that brain drain isn't really hampering them.
[0]: https://www.brusselsreport.eu/2024/09/11/the-failure-of-norw...
I'm willing to bet that the "hocus pocus" is the Court not wanting financial markets to get upended by giving the president the ability to fire Fed governors even if this is contradictory to previous decisions of theirs.
He won Iowa by 9 due to the fact that the war in Iraq was incredibly unpopular and the economy was imploding.
I'd take those numbers with a grain of salt. China is known to play with the numbers to hit goals when they feel that they need to.
>The US will be plummeted into massive recession by those sudden changes, while the rest of the world merely trades with whoever are the winners.
The massive devaluation in the dollar would mean that the country would become incredibly attractive for manufacturing exports, which would prevent a massive recession.
>If, for example, China decides that it finally wants a consumer economy, and the Renminbi becomes a partial reserve currency, the consumer demand will be absolutely massive.
If you think that China is going to shut down the majority of its factories, move them to other countries, and let their currency float freely (well, freer than it is today), you're delusional.