That sentiment is of course not, originally, attributable to kps though.
Regarding people who ascribe benign intent to Facebook, it was first expressed by one M Zuckerberg. In 2004. And first reported by Business Insider in 2010.
Whether or not it's fair to judge people for things they said 16 years ago when none of their subsequent actions or statements give any reason to believe they're a different person today isn't germane to the point, which is that Facebook/Zuckerberg's poor reputation are not new.
That's my point though; it may be irrelevant in many cases, but it is relevant to the matter of how long Zuckerbeg has had a poor reputation. Such a question obviously calls for the examination of old stories and quotes.
I think GP is downvoted because of a misunderstanding. I think GP wanted to highlight the "dumb fucks" quote of Zuckerberg, where he refers to people uploading data to his platform with that term. That quote became public in 2010, almost half a decade before 2014. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mark_Zuckerberg#Quotes
Sometimes (especially when it comes to life-affecting questions like "will my company / job survive or not?" it's necessary to draw inferences from unstructured observation -- a.k.a. "anecdotal data".
Cut-throat business practices couched in the language of “freedom to choose”. Let me retire on a good pension at 60 like my grandparents all did.
The world is supposed to be getting better not worse. If i want something “to do with my time” when I’m in my 60s and 70s (if I’m even lucky enough to live that long: many aren’t, and never get to stop working) I want to help out at a local social club or volunteer for a charity, not get paid a pittance to greet customers until my hips collapse.
>Let me retire on a good pension at 60 like my grandparents all did.
My theory: The economic success of my grandfather, part of the post-WWII "greatest generation" in the U.S., was an anomaly.
After WWII the U.S. economy was experiencing unique boomtimes. They won the war with their economy intact, and were by far the most productive country on the planet.
Since then, besides reverting to the mean, globalism and information technology has changed everything.
My grandfather had a 4th grade education, retired from his job at a steel plant, and lived in three of four houses he owned in two states. That is simply not the way the world works any more.
From an economic perspective he was in the right place at the right time. A couple generations earlier he would have been a poor farmer. A generation or two afterwards he would have been a working-poor service worker.
Like I said, this is a theory of mine, that the economy of post-WWII American was an aberration and should not be considered the normal state of things. For those couple/few decades the U.S. was the factory and research powerhouse of the world, other manufacturing bases didn't exist or were rebuilding.
I agree, and it's the same reason I take investment advice from all 50s/60s born with a huge grain of salt. "Put $10,000 in an index fund when you're 23 years old and you'll be a millionaire when you retire!" There are so many assumptions being made there that it boggles the mind. What if the economy doesn't grow 3% yoy for my entire life! What if it just... levels off?
Piketty pointed this out: in the early 1800s, authors would mention actual numerical dollar amounts paid for goods in books and plays. Because for all of prior history economic growth was a few basis points per year, at best. So a British pound earned in 1600 would be roughly comparable in value to one spent a hundred years later.
A pension is nothing special. It is just a lifetime annuity that you can buy yourself. Who wants to beholden to one company their entire career? I would much rather make more money and save it.
While social security of not a great “pension” for most people, if it continues to give the same inflation adjusted benefits today when we retire at the maximum benefit rate. It will give a married couple where one earned at the maximum contribution rate $4500/month. Since the couple with the lesser lifetime earnings can choose to get 1/2 of the higher earnings benefit while both are still living.
We could easily live off of that amount with a paid off house.
While I realize that’s not a realistic scenario for the average American, that’s very realistic for a tech worker living in any major city in the US.
ASPI is literally a US State Department-funded front group to publish anti-China propaganda.
The report it put out contains very little evidence of anything not widely reported elsewhere.
This second hand account from the Sunday Guardian (barely a newspaper, owned and run by a Hindu Nationalist politician) contains distortions/misunderstandings of an already threadbare report.
I don’t know why this is on HN. Its literally just propaganda. Share something from reputable sources.
Do you have any link to back up the claim "ASPI is literally a US State Department-funded front group to publish anti-China propaganda"?
ASPI is an Australia think tank, founded by Australian government and partially funded by Australia's Department of Defense, according to their website [0]. Clearly they're biased but not necessarily anti-China. Australia was pretty cozy with China until very recently.
> little evidence of anything not widely reported elsewhere
Are you trying to say the claims are true, since they were independently reported? Or that they mostly lack evidence? Without telling us which claims are confirmed by other sources, which are unsupported, and which are distortions, we can only speculate.
I'm saying that the US State Department-funded ASPI report and a rehashed column from a Hindu nationalist newspaper that barely qualifies as journalism are poor sources on this subject: neither provide any credible information on this subject.
