tene80i

hmm… I don’t think you’re tying this closely enough to your average person on the street and their daily life. I mean I get your point but it’s very abstract. If you want to convince people, identify a problem they are having. “Peace of mind” only works if they don’t already have that.

This is a great question but let’s reverse it: why should they care?

I don’t mean they shouldn’t, but you have to start there.

Consider the things people care about: friends, family, finances, their career, health, hobbies, their local amenities, the avoidance of hassle and, for some, living according to a set of ideals.

Why should they care? What does open source give you?

The legislature hasn’t collapsed - parliamentarians still have their position. There is no stable government able to command a majority. If a government can’t command a majority of a legislature, it can’t legislate, so it can’t meaningfully govern. You could proceed bill by bill, but that’s a different kind of instability.

A 0% chance of fair elections? That’s quite a claim. Care to back it up with any evidence?

That’s interesting. Could you share an example or a resource about this?

“set fire to all the... hotels [housing asylum seekers]... for all I care"

Those mere opinions?

Couldn’t you have a system where the AI makes a recommended diagnosis but a doctor needs to be the one to actually diagnose? Then you have expert oversight and accountability backed up by tooling that can help with their blind spots.

Anything equivalent to “We can do this the easy way or the hard way” said to a TV network by the official who can withdraw their licence to broadcast?

Irrelevant. You were arguing this was an ordinary part of business, and the point is that it clearly isn’t.

Now you’re moving on to how much it matters that the government made such a demand. It matters very much, because it is unprecedented and outrageous. But I was only replying to your partial account, which left out the most crucial aspect of the entire affair.

You left out the part where a government official all but demanded they do what they did.

The point is government overreach, not that the victims are saints.

No need for that. I was just asking someone to clarify what they were saying.

Regardless of what you think about the government, that wasn’t a statement in the above. The statement was about tech companies. So it wasn’t clear.

Which part?

I didn’t try creating a twin myself - I watched your YouTube demo (or most of it). Creating a twin via LinkedIn profile URL doesn’t feel like something I’d use for CRO because in B2C I’m not thinking in terms of LinkedIn profiles, and I don’t have them to work with.

Seems like a very powerful tool - for someone in B2C like me it would just want a different pitch / setup to get me to try it out.

Very interesting idea. I like the approach of using AI to flesh out a persona.

I am skeptical of the accuracy of a detailed AI-generated response, but as a broad guide to what a type of user I don't know well might be thinking, this is clever.

It's useful beyond B2B, but you'd want to pitch it in terms of generating living personas rather than focusing on linkedin profiles.

From a product / CRO background more than marketing, I'd be thinking of it in terms of identifying any issues different types of users might find with a page.

It's a clever idea. I think maybe it's so novel it would be easy to miss the value. Consider making the landing copy more concretely value-related. "Drive business growth" is very broad. "Drive more inquiries" or whatever makes sense in your area.

It will be a low percentage, but a low percentage at youtube's scale is still a vast amount of money and worth going after.

Tiddlywiki!

That’s great. But not exclusively, right? What about your salary, assuming you’re a professional in software? Do you still want that? I would argue you deserve it, but I also believe authors and other creators should be compensated. Too many people here argue for the software professional compensation only, conveniently.

Because whenever anyone argues that all creative and knowledge works should be freely available, accessible without compensating the creators, they conveniently leave out software and the people who make it.

Moreover, IP law protects plenty of people who aren’t “established interests”. You just, perhaps, don’t know them.

It must differ by geography. In my country, authors are paid library revenue according to the number of times their books are borrowed. Perhaps as well as an upfront purchase.

Re: what “society has decided”, are you arguing that because libraries exist, no one may sell books for a price?

Seems extreme, not widely agreed by the population or the relevant parties, and likely to cause immense problems with the economics of knowledge production, but it’s certainly one point of view!

Similarly I argue that because open source code exists, software engineers must all work for free, and that because public parks exist, everyone’s home gardens are open to all.

Libraries are great and authors get paid when you borrow the book. But we’re talking about piracy.

As for window washing vs knowledge production, not sure what you mean. Books have a price. Nobody’s decided they should be free either.

It’s very funny when people declare “piracy isn’t stealing”, as if the metaphor of piracy is all about singing and drinking.

Copying and distributing works isn’t identical to theft (deliberately depriving someone of their property), but you’re enjoying someone’s work without compensating them, so it isn’t totally unlike depriving them of something.

I guess it depends how you feel about refusing to pay a window washer. Or indeed you not being paid by your employer. It isn’t theft, but someone is clearly stiffing someone else.

As for only big companies benefitting from the copyright regime… seems like an ideological assumption. I know plenty of authors and they are quite happy having legal protections around their work which means they can earn from their labour.

I’m really not sure what you’re arguing. You want a precise test for being a good PM, that can be marked like an examination with correct and incorrect answers? It’s not engineering - it’s a role largely to do with learning and measuring and facilitating streams of work across multiple different (highly opinionated!) types of professionals - user researchers, engineers, designers, marketers, copywriters, data scientists - all of whose expertise is needed to ensure good outcomes. The fact that it can’t be measured as a multiple choice test doesn’t mean it isn’t skill. But if you really want to go down that route, then you’d ask a PM to explain some ways of proving the value of a potential feature, or the different ways to prioritise a roadmap, or how to manage challenging stakeholders, or indeed how to get good outcomes from colleagues who insist that only they are the people with any kind of skill…

Don’t worry, PMs are also used to working with engineers who view their profession as the only special one. Managing that is part of how to get good outcomes.

If you’ve mainly encountered bad PMs, then hey I’m sorry for you. Find somewhere to work with better colleagues?

But you’ll not convince me that one profession is just inherently better than another. That’s silly, and speaks to a lack of empathy that is, if you’re still looking for a checkbox test for the role, the type of thing that would cause you to fail it immediately.

Well sure, I never said they were equivalent in all respects. Just that you can have good and bad versions of both. For sure the failure modes are different.

I challenge the idea that there is no skill test for PMs, though - take a PM interview at a serious product company some day.

And the PM role is of course more than just delivery. If they dropped dead the product would still get shipped. But then what? Someone would need to talk to customers, dig into data and figure out the roadmap. Other people can do it, but in a sufficiently complex company you might as well get people who are good at it and want to devote their time to it.

I understand why some engineers don’t like PMs. But it is exactly the same reason as why some PMs (and C-suites) view engineers as fungible resources who waste time on abstractions instead of shipping, and pad estimates and refuse to discuss practical tradeoffs to move quicker - it’s an unfair generalisation based on bad experiences.

I just think more respect all around wouldn’t hurt.

There are bad PMs and good PMs, and bad engineers and good engineers. If you treat an entire profession with disdain, don’t be surprised if you get treated like that too.

Not sure why you're being downvoted – this is a perfectly interesting fact.

Presumably the words "chit" and "pat" don't literally mean "heads" and "tails", though, even if they correspond to those sides? If not, what do they mean?

The goal is to increase revenue, and one way to do that is to make the experience worse for people blocking ads. Some, like you, will keep finding new ways to bypass them. Others will give up and allow the ads, or pay for ad-free. They don’t need to stop all the ad-blocking users, just more and more each time. And if you’re a die-hard who will never allow ads, they probably don’t care what you do at all. Why should they? It’s not personal - they just want to keep increasing revenue, and it’s not coming from you no matter what, so they don’t care what your experience is like.

Product teams analyse call summaries at scale to guide the roadmap to reduce future calls. It’s not just about case management.

OK yes I meant no reasonable people. I’m not sure what your point is. That Americans deserve to “find out” terrible things because of their government, but other countries don’t? I was just trying to agree with you that the situations are the same.

The comment above says “Friendly reminder to please not confuse the Trump administration with all U.S. citizens.”

Nobody is saying he doesn’t officially represent the USA. It’s about not assuming ALL Americans agree with what the administration is doing. A reasonable ask, no?