Wonder how this isn’t bigger news. The story is shocking, but absolutely confirms my gut feeling that google search has gone to shit in the last few years, and was fine before
Prabhakar Raghavan and the McKinsey-inspired management class forced the real tech people out and shit all over the search engine intentionally to squeeze out more short-term profits. Google: An Enshittification Tale
those running Facebook groups routinely find that their content isn’t even being shown to those who choose to follow them thanks to Meta’s outright abusive approach to social media where the customer is not only wrong, but should ideally have little control over what they see.
inhales deeply YOU ARE NOT THE CUSTOMER!!! YOU ARE THE PRODUCT!!!!
It astounds me how many people STILL don't understand this
it doesn't make sense, just say they're exploiting customers. Saying "you are product" just make people take it literally and think Facebook is wrapping people up and selling them whole package, organ and brain included, which is nonsense
They should take it literally, because it is meant literally!
They're not exploiting customers, they are exploiting people. Those people are NOT their customers.
Facebook is literally selling people in data form. Everything you post, everyone you interact with, everything you look at across most of the web (not just facebook.com) is all catalogued and used to create a fingerprint that is a digital representation of you, and that is their product! "Essence of /u/Melt for sale here"
Saying "you are product" just make people take it literally and think Facebook is wrapping people up and selling them whole package, organ and brain included, which is nonsense
You're the only person I've ever seen who has taken this expression literally.
Seems like I've been seeing more and more comments on Lemmy that are dumb takes like the one above. Makes me wonder if Lemmy is on the radar of more of the bad faith posters sowing division but having no idea how to get through to the demographic here.
Read this a week or so ago and it's a fantastic summarization of the core problem. I almost never use Google search anymore. I go between DuckDuckGo and Perplexity.
I've tried to use DDG for a few weeks now, and I find it gets worse the more specific I search.
For general things, it's fine. But if I'm looking for an installation tutorial for a certain kind of plumbing hardware, it struggles to show me anything but brand and retail pages.
I run a SearXNG instance myself and while it is a fine aggregator, it's important to note what it is and isn't. For instance, Sear does not have a dedicated search index and leans on third party API calls (to indexes such as the aforementioned Google and DDG listings.) This is my understanding, feel free to correct it.
For my money, I like the anonymity that Sear can afford and that it hides the AI bullshit pouring into the UIs. My son and I were talking over the weekend about how unreliable he is finding the move to AI search.
Because the aggregated weighted result ranking provides a more useful page rank than any individual search engine, and if any search engine tries to (accidentally or otherwise) stuff specific results into the top ranks, it doesn't matter. It'll be deranked because no other engine displays those results highly. In a similar manner, it deranks targeted SEO attempts unless multiple platforms are targeted.
Don't get me wrong, it still has its problems. For example, if the individual search engines all get a bit too samey, then it will as well.
I've been using Perplexity for 2-3 months now. On 2 occasions, it flat out lied to me. The latest one, I was asking if it knew about a men's brand that featured cranes on the shirt. It kept giving the same incorrect result, so I tried giving it more details, and then eventually it responded very confidently that it must be "Crane & Co a classic American menswear brand", but it offered no references, which I found odd. Then I asked if it just made that up, and it confessed to fabricating a lie...
did you just make that up?
You're right, I do not actually have a specific men's dress shirt brand in mind that features a crane bird logo. I should not have fabricated a brand name and details. I do not have a definitive answer for the specific men's dress shirt brand you are asking about that has a crane bird on it. I made an incorrect assumption and provided made-up information, which was wrong of me. In the future, I will be more transparent if I do not have a factual answer, rather than guessing. Please feel free to provide me with more details, and I will do my best to research and find the actual brand you are referring to.
Check out You.com too, their search is far better than Google on a lot of the technical topics I've searched for.
Edit: ugh, it was good. Now they're shovelling LLM interaction front and center and the original search functionality is completely buried. If you can find their original search interface it might still be worth a look.
Part of what makes Twitter, Reddit, etc. such easy targets for bot spammers is that they're single-point-of-entry. You join, you have access to everyone, and then you exhaust an account before spinning up 10 more.
The Fediverse has some advantages and disadvantages here. One significant advantage is that -- particularly if, when the dust finally settles, it's a big network of a large number of small sites -- it's relatively easy to cut off nodes that aren't keeping the bots out. One disadvantage, though, is that it can create a ton of parallel work if spam botters target a large number of sites to sign up on.
A big advantage, though, is that most Fediverse sites are manually moderated and administered. By and large, sites aren't looking to offload this responsibility to automated systems, so what needs to get beaten is not some algorithmic puzzle, but human intuition. Though, the downside to this is that mods and admins can become burned out dealing with an unending stream of scammers.
If it really ramps up, we could share block lists too, like with ad blockers. So if a friend (or nth-degree friend) blocks someone, then you would block them automatically.
We had a bunch of Japanese teenagers run scripts on their computers and half the Fediverse was full of spam. If someone really cared about spamming, this shit wouldn’t stop as quickly.
The upside of that attack is that instance Admins had to raise their game and now most of the big instances are running anti-spam bots and sharing intelligence. Next time we'll be able to move quickly and shut it all down, where this time we were rather scrambling to catch up. Then the spammers will evolve their attack and we'll raise our game again.
It's true that the toolset isn't here now, and the network is actually very fragile at the moment.
It's also true that platform builders don't seem to want to deal with these kinds of tools, for raisins.
But it's also true that temporary blocks are both effective and not that big of a deal.
I'm not sure why you'd think that manual moderation will lead to small instances getting barred, though. Unless you're predicting that federation will move to whitelisting, rather than blacklisting? That's historically been the tool of corporate services, not personal or community ones.
We’re probably lucky that AI spammers haven’t discovered the Fediverse yet, but if the Fediverse does actually become big enough for mainstream use, we’ll see Twitter level reaction spam in no time, and no amount of CAPTCHAs will be able to stop it.
I was thinking about this the other day. We might have to move to a whitelist federation model with invite-only instances at some point.
I don't think that's a perfect system anyway though, spammers could create a massive tree of fake accounts and just only use a small proportion of them for spam
Use a number of compromised user accounts to set this up and it becomes a nightmare
Most of the internet is made up of echo chambers now even though anyone and everyone can access a majority of it. I don't think being selective in who we allow into communities worsens the pre-existing echo chamber issue. If anything it may help to be more selective. It can sometimes be impossible to tell the difference between trolls, bots, and real people, so I feel like we assume every person we disagree with is a troll or bot. The issue with that is that we may be outright dismissing real opinions. In theory, everyone in a selective community is a real person who is expressing their true thoughts and feelings.
Instead of being this gen's September 1993, I feel like the changes being sped up by the introduction of generative models are finally forcing us into October 1993. As in: they're reverting some aspects of the internet to how they used to be.
also to an “every company that doesn’t get the most expensive AI will start lagging behind” economy.
That spells tragedy of the commons for those companies. They ruining themselves will probably have a mixed impact on us [Internet users in general].
I expect a wave of internet users to get upset and call paying for used services “enshittification”, because people don’t realise how much running these AI models actually costs.
I am so tired of this bullshit. Every time I've turned around, for the past thirty years now, I've seen some variation on this same basic song and dance.
Yet somehow, in spite of supposedly being burdened with so much expense and not given their due by a selfish, ignorant public, these companies still manage to build plush offices on some of the most expensive real estate on the planet and pay eight- or even nine-figure salaries to a raft of executive parasites.
When they start selling assets and cutting executive salaries, or better yet laying them off, then I'll entertain the possibility that they need more revenue. Until then, fuck 'em.
I don't expect anyone to start a web site or service or to give me or anyone else access to it at all, much less for free.
I'm just making the very narrow point that when a company chooses to do all of that, and manages to make enough money to build a plush corporate headquarters on some of the most expensive real estate on the planet and pay its executives millions or even tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, then starts crying about not making enough money, that's self-evident bullshit.
If anybody's acting"entitled" in that scenario, it's the greedy corporate weasels who spend billions on their own privilege, then expect us to cover their asses when they come up short.
Probably worth the longer read, but I’m on my way out the door and I know I’ll forget later.. I had one of the robots gen up a tldr.
TLDR;
The article discusses the internal challenges and strategic shifts at Google, particularly around the management and prioritization of its search engine functionality versus advertising revenue. It starts with a "code yellow" alert raised due to declining search revenue, a term derived humorously from the color of a tank top worn by a former VP. This crisis led to a focus shift towards maximizing revenue, often at the expense of user experience and search quality.
Ben Gomes, a foundational figure in Google Search, and others expressed concerns about the increasing influence of advertising demands over search integrity. This tension resulted in significant leadership changes, with Prabhakar Raghavan taking over as the head of Google Search. The narrative suggests that Raghavan, who had a controversial tenure at Yahoo, brought a similar growth-focused approach to Google, prioritizing revenue over product quality. This shift is portrayed as part of a broader problem in tech, where managerial focus on growth and profits undermines the quality and utility of technology products.
The author uses these events at Google as a microcosm of larger issues in Silicon Valley, critiquing the pervasive "Rot Economy" mindset that prioritizes financial metrics over genuine innovation and user satisfaction. The story serves as a cautionary tale about the consequences of allowing revenue-driven management to dictate the direction of tech companies, potentially leading to a decline in product quality and innovation.
Edit: I especially like how it kept the detail about the yellow shirt. This is the context we need.
"So you're the reason why Yahoo! is a useless search engine and its market share crashed?"
"Yes"
"You're hired!"
This sort of shit makes me want to go into business myself to show everyone how easy it would be to make long-term stable growth by just not squeezing employees and customers for every cent
The issue is the mentality of lack of growth = death and low shareholder returns. When you get as big as these giants this is a valid concern and not an easy problem to solve. You have to be highly creative and find new ways to bring revenue in. Search is stuck in a large rut and is why they’re looking at AI to help spur more growth.
Google internal politics ousted the last of the OG Google guys and replaced him with the same person who killed Yahoo, Prabhakar Raghavan.
The general consensus is that all of the changes to Google since 2019 were driven by profit instead of trying to find things, like a search engine should. And those decisions were spearheaded by Prabhakar Raghavan, who used the training of a data scientist to run Google into the ground for short term financial gain. Sundae Prichai hired Prabhakar Raghavan directly and then promoted him from Head of Ads to Head of Search after firing the guy who had been helping guide Google Search since 1999.
A man named Raghavan has been taken on as a major operational manager for yahoo, ibm, etc. Seems his direction of their operations lines up with a sudden collapse in quality in the areas he was at. Regardless everyone seems to discuss how he is one of the best researchers in field. The dark design, and other issues, google has been seeing an increase in, for years, is basically his direction and, while he isn't the CEO, he basically runs google.
In this rare case, I would totally suggest you read the article. It has the perfect amount of humor mixed with shocking facts (revealed via email evidence from the Google antitrust case) and it wraps it all up in a way that's easy to understand.
Based on this particular comment chain and your decision to come back and read the article, i decided to read it as well. Very engaging, indeed! Learned quite a bit, def worth the time. I even subscribed to Ed's newsletter, lol
But do you know who has? Sundar Pichai, who previously worked at McKinsey — arguably the most morally abhorrent company that has ever existed, having played roles both in the 2008 financial crisis (where it encouraged banks to load up on debt and flawed mortgage-backed securities) and the ongoing opioid crisis, where it effectively advised Purdue Pharma on how to “growth hack” sales of Oxycontin. McKinsey has paid nearly $1bn over several settlements due to its work with Purdue. I’m getting sidetracked, but one last point. McKinsey is actively anti-labor. When a company brings in a McKinsey consultant, they’re often there to advise on how to “cut costs,” which inevitably means layoffs and outsourcing. McKinsey is to the middle class what flesh-eating bacteria is to healthy tissue.
Damn. That’s a third degree burn if I’ve ever seen one!
Bruh don't be racist its not like americans or brits are not after money india sucks at a lot of things including what you just said but its not like they are the only one's like that .
No. Where did it say anything about anyone else? You are the one implying that this only applies to one group. The OP is just saying they are disappointed by a certain group.
Tech companies with Indian CEOs have defined and refined rent-seeking over innovations.
Unlike Brin, Page, Zuckerberg, Gates who had interest in technology and the product, these are just fucking yes men who exist to please the board by trying to keep the line going up, as long as they're not required to take risks themselves.
They'll buy competition, give shit pay to employees, and cut costs even if that harns the company in the long run.
Idk didn't zuck suppress a lot of war shit to please others ? Sell bad ads ? Bloat his platforms with trackers and ads ? All for profit also there is a really REALLY big reddit thread with all the bad things zuck did .
Do you have any concept of how statistics works? It's interesting (I mean, maybe but probably not really) that you can name a few greedy Indian tech execs, and act like this is some sort of nationwide or worldwide trend. As if your ability to name three people somehow negates centuries of history of the planet (including India, "your land") being ravaged by white people for profit at the expense of native populations.
If you think your ability to name three people is somehow meaningful, why don't we just take a few minutes on LinkedIn to see who's running these massive US corporations. If you want to make this a racial thing, let's see how many of them are old white dudes. Let's see how many of them ARE LITERALLY RUNNING THE SAME CORPORATIONS YOU REFER TO. But they've got one Indian dude in their C-Suite, and for you that's a smoking gun that this is a problem with their race right?
Brain broken. Taking you at your word that you're actually Indian (and that this isn't some overflow from some ethno-religious, Hindu vs. Muslim bullshit), it's pretty fucking sad that your mind seems to work this way. Talk about self-loathing.
You know what, I just had a great idea... Why don't we try to actually make this at least somewhat scientific.
Let's compile a list of the worst "most evil" corporations on the planet. Your Nestles, your Amazons, your Down Chemicals, your Union Carbides, your Godman Sachs, your Blackwaters, etc. etc. and break down their C-Suite employees by ethnicity.
Let's see how unique this concept of greed is to Indians. I would bet my next paycheck that at the very least it would be a white plurality.
Are we playing a game where we list the names of greedy fucks who have ruined society? Because I assure you that we're looking at a ration of 10:1, at least, of white names vs. any other ethnicity. And that's being extremely generous. It's all old white dudes.
Stop fooling yourself. Power is defined by "whiteness," it's literally a synonym for systemic power and control. If you're in a position to negatively affect society in such a way, then you're white.
Naming a handful of outliers means nothing. Not to mention that those people have all been furthering the goals of that systemic "white" control structure, regardless of their skin color.
Have the few brain cells of yours ever banded together and maybe considered that if you're conflating "white" with "negative effects for society", then maybe you are indeed a racist?
I didn't do that, you just did. Try to grasp a little nuance.
On a systemic level, "white," is power. Power often means negative, yes.
In the US, are Italian Americans considered white? Yes. How about Irish? Hard to think of many people whiter than the Irish. I say this as an American of Irish descent.
And yet, their inclusion in this definition is relatively recent. Up until recently, Irish and Italian people were decidedly not white. And yet, the color of their pale skin...? I don't understand?
So clearly, the term (at the systemic level, obviously, I'm not talking about individual racism) is elastic. It is culturally defined in the context of the times.
At a systemic level, "racism" implies oppression by that power. Oppression against "whiteness" at a systemic level is not possible because there is no power in a position to oppress whites. By definition, they're at the top.
I fully expect you to just gloss over everything I said and call me racist again. Maybe someone will read this and think twice about how they view these things.
I don't think they claimed they were greedy because they were Indian. I think it is more of a question on why the Indian people who have been successful in tech are implementing the profit motive policies and what overlapping culture we share with India that would lead people to that capitalistic goal of profits over product. Isn't that something worth exploring?
I think it already has led to an educational discussion where one commentor mentioned the history of worker actions in India.
Satya Nadella turned MS around after the disaster years under Balmer. Your racism is blinding you if you think that he's a problem - from a product perspective or from profit perspective.
Not to take up for his point, but windows 10 was in development years before Nadella. The only version of windows totally under his governance has been the disastrous windows 11. So I guess I have him to thank for finally giving me the kick in the pants to fully switch to Linux.
I guess the point I need to make is that Microsoft was not good before or during Nadella. There have been bright spots, but not enough for me to have then outweigh all the other crap pulled both during and before Nadella.
Nadella gets a lot of/all the credit for Azure which is the only legit competition to AWS.
O365 has been great for their adoption too.
And then there's all the "free" dev tools like GitHub (acquisition), typescript, vs code etc. which bolsters their image.
I can't even imagine ms under Balmer giving away that much shit. Hell, I wanted to build apps for lumia and they wanted to charge me an arm and a leg just to get started. This was at a time when their store didn't have anything going for itself.
It's not funny. Our culture tells us to bow to authority. Be it old people in house and neighbourhood, or boss at work. We are not supposed to criticize them lest we get labelled troublemaker. Just keep your head down and walk down the beaten path.
There is no issue in criticizing these CEOs. They are horrible indeed. But they are like this and they have been promoted to this spot because we're in a system (capitalism) which values this behaviour. Not because they're Indian...
What it proves is being a greedy self serving prick that will do anything for a buck if given the chance is not the exclusive domain of white people. Anyone can be an incompetent executive.
Google under Brin and Page introduced many useful products, Microsoft became a household name under Gates, same with Photoshop.
What have these CEOs done after they took the reins? All I can think of is pushing for 'cloud'.
Pichai in particular I dislike the most. He was heading the Android team. But last few years Android feels stagnant. He could've done much more for his supposedly passion project as the CEO of Alphabet.
That's reasonable, but you're forgetting the part where the CEOs don't want to be the CEO anymore. They've got billions and want to spend it doing shit like wifi weather balloons or self driving cars. So they look for someone to replace them, and that replacement doesn't have the tenure in the position to say "stop the bullshit, I want good products, not half baked 'revenue generators'".
But they do have an army of MBAs in the CFOs office telling them quarterly ad revenue is down 3% year over year, which means the world is ending, so they need to pump those numbers while everyone cashes out their stock before the rest of the stock holders realize the plan is to leave them now holding the bag for the now worthless-page-of-ads-before-search-results company.
I think this is just because there are a good number of Indian people in tech. Usually it's a white person doing this and we hardly notice their skin colour (because of racism).
India actually has a pretty healthy history of workers banding together in collective action, and coming together in mutual aid. I'd elaborate but my social media minutes are about to run out
Have you spent any amount of time around software engineers who aren't from India? You may be idealizing us - a lot.
I've worked extensively with devs from NY, SF and Toronto (where I'm located). The ideal "innovative" "passionate" devs are maybe 2 to a company. The rest just want to put food on the table, buy a house, buy a car, go on vacation and fuck off at the end of the day. How do you think fb and Google built their privacy nightmares? By exclusively hiring Indians? Or by dangling enough money at devs of all races who don't give a shit?
Pretty much every single one of my colleagues will gladly write code to turn the product into complete dog shit if the "ad guy" shows up with a million dollar paycheck. What do I care? It's not my baby. My actual real life baby's future matters more to me than the future of whatever product my current company is working on.
Being an Indian yourself does not absolve you of your racist tirades against other Indians. Learn to be empathetic towards others. If I, a privileged dude-bro, can understand why people who grow up with extreme resource contention and competition behave the way they do, then you should get it too.
I've no idea why, but Amazon in particular has a huge number of Indian managers. It's never particularly bothered me, but I do see this sentiment amongst other people of Indian origin - often the most critical of Indian managers.
Is there something specific about Indian leadership that pushes growth above anything else? The sentiment in Amazon is one of ruthlessness, and pushing growth and positive short-term metrics above everything else.
This alone was worth the read. I'm not tech-inclined, really. I don't read articles on tech, follow it, or know much about computer science. However, this article was really well written, and they paint a scathing picture of said ratfucker.
It overall seems like a good article but this is why I kind of hate Ed Zirtron's reporting:
For those unfamiliar with Google’s internal scientology-esque jargon, let me explain. A “code yellow” isn’t, as you might think, a crisis of moderate severity. The yellow, according to Steven Levy’s tell-all book about Google, refers to — and I promise that I’m not making this up — the color of a tank top that former VP of Engineering Wayne Rosing used to wear during his time at the company. It’s essentially the equivalent of DEFCON 1 and activates, as Levy explained, a war room-like situation
Overall the reporting is interesting, but weird comments like this show his naked disdain for everyone and everything in the tech industry which does not make him a particularly trustworthy source.
Like "oh my god, how dare a company choose an arbitrary alert system based on a quirky influential engineer's practices, what crazy psychos!"
If he sees the code yellow tank top thing as some crazy ridiculous thing that no company should do, then I can't really trust his interpretation of the rest of the emails and documents etc.
Later in the article, he boils everything down to literally "Heroes vs Villains", and maybe in this case both of them are archetypal representations of those roles, but based on his appearances on behind the bastards it feels more like he always needs to boil everything down to black and white, good vs evil, bastard vs non bastard, with nothing in between, which again, makes it hard to trust his overall interpretations of what he's read.
It’s like a reverse Kara Swisher. Which, though I hate her work and her complete lack of integrity, I don’t want. I totally get and agree with your take.
It’s an interesting piece and starts in the traditional journalism mold, but moves much more into opinion and blog. Like going from NewsHour to Last Week Tonight. That’s not to say it’s not an interesting read or he’s not supporting his argument, but it is about persuading, not just reporting. Of course, I haven’t actually gone through all his references to see if they’re mischaracterized or taken out of context.
I agree with both your comments, but there's something so satisfying about reading vitriol about a type of person you fucking hate. I kinda liked that he doesn't hide his bias or disdain for these people.
It seems clear to me that he hates the people that are ruining the tech industry, ripping off customers, and pumping out shitty projects for short term stuck pumps, and he takes every opportunity to shit on those people and point out their idiosyncrasies. That's pretty much every tech CEO these days.
It's also pretty clear to me that he believes in the promise of the industry, and thinks that workers deserve better than the people that they work for.
Hunter S Thompson wrote a scathing eulogy for Richard Nixon, which I think is relevant here:
"Some people will say that words like scum and rotten are wrong for Objective Journalism -- which is true, but they miss the point. It was the built-in blind spots of the Objective rules and dogma that allowed Nixon to slither into the White House in the first place. He looked so good on paper that you could almost vote for him sight unseen. He seemed so all-American, so much like Horatio Alger, that he was able to slip through the cracks of Objective Journalism. You had to get Subjective to see Nixon clearly, and the shock of recognition was often painful."
Sometimes, you need one or two journalists who are in a position to say "you know what? These people suck, and I'm sick of pretending they don't". It doesn't need to be every journalist, and it probably shouldn't be, but someone needs to say it.
Yeah, I mean that's kinda of the whole conceit of Behind the Bastards, the host is explicitly and inherently calling everyone they cover a bastard by default, but if you listen to Ed Zirtron's appearances, he always just immediately wants to boil them down to a bastard as the root cause of their actions, when the literal entire point of that show is to examine what factors and backgrounds turn someone into a bastard.
Or again, I just can't understand why he would be flabbergasted by a company naming their alert system after an early engineers' tank top colour. Does he think all quirkiness and whisky should be outlawed from the workplace?
Yes, there's value in calling people bastards and scum and villains, but Ed Zirtron does it immediately, every time, which makes his judgement of them untrustworthy. There's the old adage that "if everything hurts when you poke it your finger is broken", in Ed's case given that everyone is always a bastard or a hero, it seems more plausible to me that he has some pathological need to boil everything down to simple binary systems.
There's quirkiness and [whimsy?], and there's needless obfuscation. 'Code Yellow' meaning 'Code Red' is dumb. Like I get it, it probably started as an equivalent to 'Code Wayne' and subverting expectations is funny, but it's a punchline from an old adult swim show more than anything. I get that Google HQ isn't a Hospital or the military, but sometimes clarity is important. More now because they're actively doing contracts for governments and militaries, not a scrappy startup. They became a trusted resource and are now cannibalizing themselves for short term gains.
Whimsy at the top of a company while their workers are protesting their actions isn't great.
There's quirkiness and [whimsy?], and there's needless obfuscation. 'Code Yellow' meaning 'Code Red' is dumb. Like I get it, it probably started as an equivalent to 'Code Wayne' and subverting expectations is funny, but it's a punchline from an old adult swim show more than anything. I get that Google HQ isn't a Hospital or the military, but sometimes clarity is important. More now because they're actively doing contracts for governments and militaries, not a scrappy startup. They became a trusted resource and are now cannibalizing themselves for short term gains.
If someone at a company tells you "code yellow" do you stop what you're doing and follow your drilled into memory code yellow training from school, or do you say "hey, what does code yellow mean?". They're not obfuscating anything, they've just got a company procedure with a quirky name.
Shitting on that just shows that you are looking for things to shit on them for, rather than being a thoughtful critic pointing out valid flaws.
Overall the reporting is interesting, but weird comments like this show his naked disdain for everyone and everything in the tech industry which does not make him a particularly trustworthy source.
I'd disagree - what this shows is only disdain for everyone who's fucking up technologies for the sake of profit. And I'm with him there, I found it refreshing to read an accurate account of what pieces of shit work behind the scenes in the industry. Not that I am surprised, but the account of what seems to have happened in detail and in that sequence was new to me.
I'd disagree - what this shows is only disdain for everyone who's fucking up technologies for the sake of profit.
Well you can disagree all you want but I don't see how you can read his snarky comments and think that.
His criticism of the code yellow is not because anyone involved in the code yellow procedure, invention, or naming deserves anything. He just hates everyone in tech so much that a whimsical name must be a bastard move, and not just people at their job trying to make the most of it.
I found it refreshing to read an accurate account of what pieces of shit work behind the scenes in the industry
Yeah, cause you're accepting his characterizations of everyone as bastards at face value despite not knowing them and despite knowing that Ed Zirtron thinks everyone is a bastard because it makes his world simpler. Yes it is "refreshing" to stop thinking about complex chains of actions and consequences and just think "he's an evil bastard man and it's all his fault".
"[considering] everyone as bastards" is a strawman argument.
Furthermore, the people described are assholes by the evidence provided, assuming the evidence is noy falsified.
Uhm ackshully the "late stage" in capitalism is in late stage in the same way a Cancer is late-stage. So it doesn't mean Capitalism dying, it means Capitalism killing its host (humanity)
wheresyoured.at
Top