Skip to content

We Should Immediately Nationalize SpaceX and Starlink

Technology
496 196 1.9k
  • 1 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    14 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 254 Stimmen
    40 Beiträge
    155 Aufrufe
    dojan@pawb.socialD
    It is a direct result of structural racism, as it's a product of the treatment of white men as being the default. You see it all the time in medicine. There are conditions that disproportionately affect black people that we don't know enough about because time and money hasn't been spent studying it. Women face the same problem. Lots of conditions apply differently in women. An example of this being why women historically have been underrepresented in e.g. autism diagnoses. It presents differently so for a while the assumption was made that women just can't be autistic. I don't think necessarily that people who perpetuate this problem are doing so out of malice, they probably don't think of women/black people as lesser (hell, many probably are women and/or black), but it doesn't change the fact that structural problems requires awareness and conscious effort to correct.
  • The End of Publishing as We Know It

    Technology technology
    10
    1
    50 Stimmen
    10 Beiträge
    44 Aufrufe
    beejjorgensen@lemmy.sdf.orgB
    Lol.. I wanted "DRM". But it's been a long day.
  • 1 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    11 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 285 Stimmen
    134 Beiträge
    525 Aufrufe
    I
    I'm not afraid of that at all. But if you draw shit tons of power from a crappy socket, things start to heat up real quick. Like getting really fucking hot, as in burn your house down hot.
  • 462 Stimmen
    94 Beiträge
    346 Aufrufe
    L
    Make them publishers or whatever is required to have it be a legal requirement, have them ban people who share false information. The law doesn't magically make open discussions not open. By design, social media is open. If discussion from the public is closed, then it's no longer social media. ban people who share false information Banning people doesn't stop falsehoods. It's a broken solution promoting a false assurance. Authorities are still fallible & risk banning over unpopular/debatable expressions that may turn out true. There was unpopular dissent over covid lockdown policies in the US despite some dramatic differences with EU policies. Pro-palestinian protests get cracked down. Authorities are vulnerable to biases & swayed. Moreover, when people can just share their falsehoods offline, attempting to ban them online is hard to justify. If print media, through its decline, is being held legally responsible Print media is a controlled medium that controls it writers & approves everything before printing. It has a prepared, coordinated message. They can & do print books full of falsehoods if they want. Social media is open communication where anyone in the entire public can freely post anything before it is revoked. They aren't claiming to spread the truth, merely to enable communication.
  • Duolingo CEO tries to walk back AI-first comments, fails

    Technology technology
    134
    758 Stimmen
    134 Beiträge
    514 Aufrufe
    kingthrillgore@lemmy.mlK
    I think on iOS they added a thing where it would change based on the days you didn't use Duolingo. Honestly at this point I think it speaks more about the sorry state of their company more than anything.
  • CrowdStrike Announces Layoffs Affecting 500 Employees

    Technology technology
    8
    1
    242 Stimmen
    8 Beiträge
    51 Aufrufe
    S
    This is where the magic of near meaningless corpo-babble comes in. The layoffs are part of a plan to aspirationally acheive the goal of $10b revenue by EoY 2025. What they are actually doing is a significant restructuring of the company, refocusing by outside hiring some amount of new people to lead or be a part of departments or positions that haven't existed before, or are being refocused to other priorities... ... But this process also involves laying off 500 of the 'least productive' or 'least mission critical' employees. So, technically, they can, and are, arguing that their new organizational paradigm will be so succesful that it actually will result in increased revenue, not just lower expenses. Generally corpos call this something like 'right-sizing' or 'refocusing' or something like that. ... But of course... anyone with any actual experience with working at a place that does this... will tell you roughly this is what happens: Turns out all those 'grunts' you let go of, well they actually do a lot more work in a bunch of weird, esoteric, bandaid solutions to keep everything going, than upper management was aware of... because middle management doesn't acknowledge or often even understand that that work was being done, because they are generally self-aggrandizing narcissist petty tyrants who spend more time in meetings fluffing themselves up than actually doing any useful management. Then, also, you are now bringing on new, outside people who look great on paper, to lead new or modified apartments... but they of course also do not have any institutional knowledge, as they are new. So now, you have a whole bunch of undocumented work that was being done, processes which were being followed... which is no longer being done, which is not documented.... and the new guys, even if they have the best intentions, now have to spend a quarter or two or three figuring out just exactly how much pre-existing middle management has been bullshitting about, figuring out just how much things do not actually function as they ssid it did... So now your efficiency improving restructuring is actually a chaotic mess. ... Now, this 'right sizing' is not always apocalyptically extremely bad, but it is also essentially never totally free from hiccups... and it increases stress, workload, and tensions between basically everyone at the company, to some extent. Here's Forbes explanation of this phenomenon, if you prefer an explanation of right sizing in corpospeak: https://www.forbes.com/advisor/business/rightsizing/