Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Automate the CEOs

hamiltonnolan.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–156 of 156 posts

Re: Automate the CEOs

#151

Post by pixelrevision »

coldpie wrote: post #54
jonas21 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is also the view of many working journalists, or at least the ones I know. And it's not like some CEO decided "hey, let's pivot to churning out low-quality clickbait because I really like that stuff." They were forced to by the shift of ad budgets from print to more targeted advertising and the consolidation of news readership into a small number of well-known publications. Though I do agree that it's equally unfa…

> They were forced to by the shift of ad budgets from print to more targeted advertising Indeed. As with almost everything else terrible about the world today, the root of the problem is targeted-advertising-based business models.

It really has caused a race to the bottom anywhere it becomes the primary business model. Everyone hates it but no one’s got a solve to get people paying for things once they are “free”.

Re: Automate the CEOs

#152

Post by beedeebeedee »

pydry wrote: post #137
beedeebeedee wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> unionize and strike (if youre not a dev) Why is unionizing and striking not ok for devs? That seems a little cowardly

I wasn't passing moral judgment. Striking simply wouldnt work for devs due to the nature of the job.

Teachers, miners, writers, factory workers, grocers and truckers have gone on strike. How is software development any different?

Software developers aren't police, doctors or nurses. There is no safety argument.

I've had a few conversations with people who have said the same thing, and the conclusion has been that they don't want to strike because they do not want to lose their jobs, and because culturally they view themselves differently from all of those other people. That sounds cowardly to me- especially when folks like you advocate covert disobedience (i.e., sabotage) instead of overt disobedience like striking.

EDIT: I see in a sibling comment that you say software systems can keep running without software developers, and that is why you judge them to be different. In my experience that is only partly true, but in combination with the push for code automation, I can understand the fear that if software developers strike, they will be replaced by AI. I actually think that is more reason to strike and strike now. It is up to software developers to create those job replacing AI systems. Like you said, software developers lack class consciousness- that is more the reason to raise consciousness now- and the best way is through overt action.

Re: Automate the CEOs

#153

Post by andsoitis »

ceejayoz wrote: post #105
andsoitis wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes it "incestuous"?

A bunch of CEOs sitting on each others' boards have little reason to constrain the growth of CEO compensation, and every reason to give each other golden parachutes.

How do you then explain cases where shareholders do not approve executive compensation? For instance: https://time.com/6184355/ceo-pay-investors-workers/

Re: Automate the CEOs

#154

Post by ceejayoz »

andsoitis wrote: post #153
ceejayoz wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A bunch of CEOs sitting on each others' boards have little reason to constrain the growth of CEO compensation, and every reason to give each other golden parachutes.

How do you then explain cases where shareholders do not approve executive compensation? For instance: https://time.com/6184355/ceo-pay-investors-workers/

Given the title of "Investors Are Finally Pushing Back", the explanation is presumably "people are getting fed up with boards doing this".

Re: Automate the CEOs

#155

Post by kristopolous »

xp84 wrote: post #148
kristopolous wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should consider all possible systems then and include the possibility that the system your criticizing isn't a very good democracy or maybe is democratic in ineffectual ways.

shrug Maybe you know some good governments that I don’t. It’s just that all democracies I know about are in various stages of being hacked by bad actors in bad faith. I think it’s because none of them were developed in an environment that had the tools being used now to convince people of lies that are profitable for those doing the convincing. So they’re not particularly resilient to this stuff. I don’t want to see…

Concentrating power in an even smaller group of narcissists who got there by bravado and charisma doesn't sound like it's a set up for success.

Obviously some deep reconsideration has to be done

Re: Automate the CEOs

#156

Post by ElfinTrousers »

catchnear4321 wrote: post #131
ElfinTrousers wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where do we submit change requests for People 2.0? I found a bug where people crash after roughly 60-80 years and can't be rebooted, they're just plain bricked.

the operating environment is out of spec. that is an artificial product lifespan. unplanned obsolescence. cheaper to plan for replacements, until it isn’t. bug reports can be submitted to the internet. no guarantees of effort are tied to such a report. most importantly, outsourcing the issue is somewhat the issue itself.

I guess I'll just reverse-engineer the binaries and patch it myself. If you want something done right...
Post reply on HN