> feels like the article has some anti-capitalism undertones...
What a knee-jerk sensationalist review of the article. It makes a fair point about why some consumers like the stores, and others welcome its convenience. Is that some major controversy? In fact much of the article could be taken as positive (pro-capitalistic) review of their strategy, a case study in making lots of money the old fashioned way.
It looks like you are trying to trick your person about when you sent your message. Because of an introverted personality concern? Seems like a weird use of a timer to me.
Completely different issues, maybe. Notice that the major media outlets started pumping stories about racism right about the time of the occupy protests. This is how politically motivated segregation works in general - make the commoners fight each other instead of against their oppressors.
Here is a glaring example of debating semantics in hopes to discredit the actual meaning of something or attempt to kill the topic altogether. Appears to be a bad outcome from the rise of STEM worship.
This seems to be a very privileged position to have. That if you were taught strong ethics by parents and the right social network, then everyone can obviously/simply have the same?
A Gallop poll serves as your evidence for religion's impact on stability and peace? This is pie-in-the-sky cherry picked data, stylized as a scientific inquiry.
Hypothetical Jesus would be laughed off the stage? This is a preposterous strawman. Christianity skews toward conservative politics due to lessons of humility and understanding that man should not "play God" in the form of ever-centralized (oppressive) power structures. This is not to say that religious institutions aren't without their own corrupt tendencies or that Christians should oppose state-sponsored welfare. But the underlying theme is that progressive politics tend to preach idolatry of false prophets.
Hack of a CEO of such a top public company deserves to have his speaking abilities scrutinized. And totally appropriate to spend 15% of the article on this and conclude one area where MoC's across the idealogical spectrum appeared united on.
Besides, explaining away Zuck's weakness as some kind of courtroom tactic is probably what was meant by superficial and/or extraneous.
I think he successfully highlighted a certain lack of competent leadership, which therefore makes is difficult to do the deep regulatory Q&A you had hoped for.
The truly sad part is it leads to broad financialization of Science. People up here making education into a personal problem (haves/havenots) are apparently "too smart" to see the social costs of heavy public investment in STEM education
The downside is that is fuels a speculative mindset, not only among so-called investors in bitcoin but as a ripple effect throughout the economy. However great of an innovation bitcoin is in theory, in practice it could have unintended consequences you ought to consider.
Increase in STEM degrees does not have a causal effect on number of good jobs. Any hope that it does is about as speculative as "investing" in bitcoin or the next Gamestop pattern.
His book, Rework, is what got me interested in his writings. I guess the short article left a mark mainly because it reflected ideas that I enjoyed from the book
My take is that the stock was basically being manipulated by an angry mob. While I completely applaud their efforts and stand against the unfair advantage that institutional investors have, I can also see where their approach could trigger broader market instability. Let's assume it was a broad coalition that assessed the risk and decided extraordinary measures were in the public's interest.
It could be viewed as deception/fraud, to claim neutrality but do low-key censoring behind the scenes. It's a public company and must meet some kind of accountability standards. Justifying actions as pushing bits on their own servers is just another emotional view of business law.
>It's an oddity of US politics that this is perceived as a left or right issue at all
Not that odd. One side believes in decentralized power which tends toward police doing "pretty much anything" according to their read of the situation, and another side favors reams of paperwork and regulations that may hinder effective policing. The oddity in the US is how the media convinces people to pick one side and criticize the other absolutely, rather than commit to compromise.
> Your argument is, essentially, the state is powerless to restrict markets.
This either/or attitude about free markets and regulation is upsetting. Someone makes a point about a specific technology and the effects of its high value to both public and private sector, and the common reaction is to generalize for the whole history of economic theory around markets. If people trust the state in its ability to regulate a given market, then great. I think it's overly optimistic in this case however.
Exactly. Passion may be indicated by that time you stepped up for a 60 hour week in a given situation, but I'm not seeing anything where the author expects such strict dedication at all times. I simply read it as a plea to reduce the job-hopping culture of tech (and perhaps of other industries that are following suit because of tech).
I don't know what it's like to work at Google but can guess there is a preponderance of disengaged paycheck-grabbers. You want to avoid hiring people that are just in it for the money and will jump ship when something better comes up.
I'm not giving concrete examples about my job, nor my thoughts on Enron in this thread. Sorry if I exaggerated the point but I do find it offensive to get a grilling about my private life. Not woke at all.
Thank you. I love to see the intersection of many fields of engineering, science, finance, and mass media here on HN. A truly amazing resource. But yes I struggle with the semantics when they blend together too much. I struggle to see how, when petty Us vs. Them battles flare, it's generally in circles where these fields all culminate into one. I struggle to see the sleazy culture of east coast advertising and stock-trading types (bigots from the 50's and 80's) infiltrate technology as a profession, specifically in Silicon Valley. I struggle to see that "social responsibility" and/or spiritual awakening is being packaged and sold like McDonald's.
I'll pass - can't figure out how well you know about Enron and its similarity to other financial scandals, ripple effects of management incompetence, and corporate governance in general. I don't think it would help to provide just one or two examples at this point.
Affirmative action is about policy and the law. I was referring to a newer trend wherein middle management assumes the role of thought police and decides for others how well educated they are in "historical struggles that various groups have gone through and realizing how that impacts them today."
BTW I absolutely appreciate your concern for fairness, and encourage you to read up about the history of corporate governance and the financial scandals that arise when lawlessness infiltrates management.
How familiar are you with the term? Perhaps I used an offensive slur for convenience and should reconsider the phrasing? In my experience, over-emphasizing "social responsibility" that has nothing to do with the product tends to put less competent managers in power. Less competent managers tend to favor less competent engineers. And it's a vicious cycle.