101–109 of 109 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure why the article is calling it a podcast, I think they’re referring to his TV show on Apple TV.
There was a podcast that went along with the Apple TV show. He wanted to interview her on the podcast, not on the TV show. But the AI and China segments they blocked were for the TV show.
This really isn't that surprising. The FAANGs, including Apple, have committed serious anti-trust violations especially their hoarding of talent during the 0% interest rate years to prevent them from starting competitors then freezing hiring and laying off en masse once the interest rates started rising. They really should have to pay damages in the 6 to 7 figure range to each developer who's been looking for work in…
What is "hoarding of talent"? These are human beings and they have a right to work where they want. Let's be clear, apple "hoards" talent by offering them competitive pay and benefits. If others want to compete they should offer something as compelling. It doesn't have to be money, I personally left for less money multiple times. It could be working on an interesting problem or with smart people.
These comments make it sound like Jon Stewart himself wields no power. He commands an audience he can take to any platform he wants. It just looks like he took a liking to the pot of money Apple put in front of him.You can't really make the argument that Apple is the only game in town for Jon Stewart. Free speech laws protect against government supression of speech, not corporations.
Yeah we know they can do it. The extremely obvious point is that they should not.
The interesting or perhaps scary question is how many times are news hosts told to drop a topic/story and they go along with it and the public never even knows a topic was dropped? It's worth asking how we can make our systems safer against large corporations shady influence.
Guilt by association is now not only restricted to superficial advertising and will influence anything that can be controversial. For Apple it is even more relevant because it conflicts with their clean image.
Meawhile it's Apple's "competitors" that are in the FTC's crosshairs. Arguably that makes this just a little more interesting. To be blunt, in keeping Khan off a podcast with a large audience, Apple appears to be doing someone else a favour.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm curious why governments aren't held to this standard of conspiracy the are caught being "very pleased" if private companies did this or that to stifle various freedoms. If JS was honest and a comedian he'd bring something like this up to the FTC rather than give the federal government a nice ego massage.
> I'm curious why governments aren't held to this standard of conspiracy the are caught being "very pleased" if private companies did this or that to stifle various freedoms. In the situation you're hinting at, social media companies regularly and frequently said "no" to those requests. That does not appear to have been the case in the Google/Apple non-compete conspiracy. In other words, it's only a conspiracy if bot…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And the revenue? Did it more than double? If so, they got their money's worth. It's a business and people have been numbed to companies being dishonest, but it's still a betrayal to hire so much, have them generate more money for your company, then drop them when convinient for the company.
>And the revenue? Did it more than double? If so, they got their money's worth. Did that revenue double because of the contributions of the extra headcount, or because of the temporary artificial economic situation of that period that doesn't apply anymore? From where I was standing, the revenue massively spiked during the pandemic way before the mass hirings even happened, let alone have those people become producti…
A mix of both. Clearly if they thought they could get double the money with the same amount of people they would not have gone on a hiring spree.
If you want to take an inference: most companies post layoffs are still larger than 2019. So that implies that the inflation wasn't all temporary.
>but most tech companies aren't there to provide social services, but to make a profit,
Sure, companies will be as evil as regulation allows them too, nothing new. As I said, just becsuse people are numb to it doesn't mean we shouldn't call it out.
>There are plenty of tech jobs out there that won't crash or won't let you go the moment the shit hits the fan, but they also won't pay anywhere big-tech TC.
Oh it's okay. I work in games. I get the worst of both worlds, this isn't about chasing total comp for me.
My #1 goal is growth and it just feels like it stagnated in the professional conrext. Spending as much time looking for a job these past 2 years as I am working jobs. I've just kind of accepted the plataeu and am doing some indie work. But I still need some stability, and it's not like "lower paying" (so, well paying but not close to 400k total comp) are biting any better in this market. So may as well apply yo what I know.
>People aren't complaining about making bank, earning orders of magnitude above average pay during the good times, right?
My sector is :)
>why do they expect sympathy when the charade that made them bank for a while comes crashing down?
Outside of the above reasons: becsuse it's not sustainable. Stability is a big factor in any job market and in All sectors it feels like an all time low. Loyalty/tenure is dead and that's going to cause a huge brain drain across all white collar work as the seniors who live in an age of proper retention take off. It's a ticking time bomb.
I don't care about sympathy, we're on the internet. I do hope at least some people can look at the grander picture of it all, though. A storm is coming, not necessarily I the next 5 years, but maybe 10-15.