Careless People
pluralistic.net
Careless People
1–10 of 575 posts
Re: Careless People
#2How abstract is this book? Are there many examples of things that are relevant at meta today, especially on the web and developer front?
Re: Careless People
#3[flagged]
Re: Careless People
#4I’m only part of the way through the book, so have nothing to spoil here. But it’s entertaining. And shocking. The author will relate a scene that’s so absurd that you think “ah, this can’t be true, this is made up for dramatic effect, nobody would act like that” and then you Google it and you realize the absurd thing is totally true and was fully documented at the time. All the author is adding is a perspective from the inside.
I understand why Facebook people might have wanted the book to go away. That their attempt to do so comically backfired and resulted in entirely the opposite effect, well, that’s also pretty much what you’d expect from this crew after reading the book.
Re: Careless People
#5Its a good book I read it, the only thing that she messed up though is not letting her exec level shares vest and be quiet until then imo :)
Re: Careless People
#6[flagged]
I don't think so. It just underlines the title of the book "Careless People".
Facebook doesn't care about anything, takes no responsibility, "can't be touched", be it on their home turf or across the globe.
Re: Careless People
#7[flagged]
I think the comparison is not meant to be between degrees of horribleness between the two events, but between degrees of complicity and denial on the part of Facebook management.
Re: Careless People
#8Whenever these kind of articles pop up, I always think how sad it is that PyTorch, Llama and many widely used opens source projects are tied to Meta.
Re: Careless People
#9> There's Zuck, whose underlings let him win at board-games like Settlers of Catan because he's a manbaby who can't lose (and who accuses Wynn-Williams of cheating when she fails to throw a game of Ticket to Ride while they're flying in his private jet).
Why does this seem to be a recurring pattern among the modern ultrawealthy? Does anyone who fails to bend over backwards for them just end up getting exiled? Have the elites through history always been this insecure or is it a modern phenomenon?
If you're wildly successful at something with significant real world influence, why would you care so strongly about something as relatively inconsequential as a board game or a video game? Being good at any kind of game is mostly a function of how much time and energy you've invested into it. If you claim to be an extremely hardcore worker who has any kind of family life there just aren't any leftover hours in the day for you to grind a top position in a game. And anyway, if you're playing games for fun and to bond with people, you probably shouldn't be playing tryhard optimal strategies every game, and should instead explore and experiment with more creative strategies. This is a lesson that took me a while to learn.
Re: Careless People
#10[flagged]
The comparison is that there are two events that Facebook couldn't mentally or emotionally acknowledge their involvement in even though they were clearly involved and had influenced, not that there is moral equivalence between the two events.