Most of this stuff could be done in compliance with the laws but it’s just cheaper to do it somewhere else where you allowed to vent poison in the air rather than having to filter it out.
At least in Melbourne, the tram network genuinely does have too many stops. Stops which are only a few minutes walk from each other.
Which results in the trams being incredibly slow compared to driving even if they are frequent, clean, and generally nice. Since the network already needs total overhaul to be wheelchair accessible, there has been a plan to combine 3 stops in to two wheelchair accessible ones. Which will also speed up the trams since they don’t have to stop as often.
France have already developed their own (recently posted here) [1][2].
Also, the "there's no drop in replacement" line is just making up excuses for not acting. Yes, you will not get 100% of the Office 365 features out of the box. There will be some friction.
It's simply ridiculous seeing EU bureaucracy preparing e.g. to ban russian oil [3], making life more expensive for all people, and balking on being forced to switch their stupid word processor.
Considering that I doubt most normal office-user people even use features in Word other than changing fonts etc I doubt that will be a big issue anyway.
Not sure if you've worked in an office recently, but on google workspace I (we) use very regularly:
- Group Editing - this ones hard to get right
- Reviewing Tools
- Automated document generation
- Embedding of data-backed images from 3rd party tools
Looking at my wife who works in government, they use it even more heavily, with a lot of complicated formatting, numbering, standards etc going into each document, plus OneDrive collaborative features on top of that.
I suspect office-user people are where most of the features get used. Agreed, most people only use 15% of the features, but which 15% that is likely changes quickly person to person.
It doesn't need to be "most". "Some" or even "a few" can be enough to make a hell of a mess if those few have created documents that are key to the business in one way or another (proposals, end-user documentation, etc). And there are the other components to the suite like Powerpoint, Excel, and Project to consider.
So then act now, because the best time to act was yesterday, and the longer you wait the worse the mess and pain becomes. Not acting at all is not an option.
What France is doing is great but, as you’ll see discussed in that HN comment section, it is hardly an office suite. It’s not a full replacement by a long shot. I hope it will be one day though!
The problem is that Google only covers "most of it", so even if it covers 99% of use cases, for that cases where it doesn't, companies still need MS Office.
I worked for a startup that was all OSX desktops and Google Docs. Then when we hit 100 employees, the finance department required MS Office, so they used Office for Mac, then as we grew, they needed real MS Office running in Windows, so they ran Windows in Parallels, then as we continued to grow they moved to full Windows laptops. When I left the company (at around 1000 employees), almost a third of the company was on Windows (mostly in Finance, Sales, and other business departments). And the team supporting the 2/3 Mac desktops was about 1/3 the size of the team supporting Windows.
Though I suppose it's easier for a government to move off Microsoft. When an investor tells you to use their financial modeling software that only works with MS Excel, it's pretty hard for a small company to refuse, but a government has more power to force others to conform to their choice.
Their initial need for Office was some soft of forecasting model that they needed to update for a large investor. That was a big spreadsheet that ran on Office for OSX if I remember correctly. After that, I don't know what specifically they needed to use, they had purchased some software that required Windows and Office.
Call me cynical, but having been around the block a few times when I hear "need" and "require" my brain translates that to "want" and "it would be convenient if". I've done my share of forecasting for investors and am quite confident that there is nothing in any startup forecast that could conceivably "require" Windows. I mean, absolute worst case, just use SQL.
The CFO just preferred Windows, that's it, I'd bet money on it.
The requirement came from the investment house - they wanted data in the format they were accustomed to.
What was driving that requirement at the investment house doesn't matter, when the company that owns over 50% of your company wants something, you don't say "Hey, we don't want to buy a Windows license with your money, how about I send it to you in this similar, but different format and then you guys can figure out how to make it match what you're looking for?"
IME what it means is that they have a bunch of processes built that specifically depend on it. It doesn't make it impossible to switch but depending on the scope could be financially or practically prohibitive to migrate. Maybe someone has 10 years of custom excel macros put together that are run every quarter, that would need to be migrated. To migrate you might not have the internal capacity and might need to hire external help to do it.
Not anymore. Today I tried to copy paste a string of 15 ascii characters into an Excel cell. Excel spun around for 20 seconds then blurted out an error that "the data is too big". I hit F2 (enter cell Edit Mode), pasted the 15 characters in the edit window and this was I was able to get the data in the cell.
They're competitive but they're not drop-in replacements. Even office for Mac is not a drop-in replacement for office on Windows. It's pretty trivial to find significant differences that will be in use in any large organization.
Considering every job I’ve had in recent times has involved a switch between Google/Microsoft tools after being acquired, it’s about as drop in as anything gets in tech.
Of course no product will be an identical replica of the Microsoft tools, but both get the job done.
It depends. If you're writing documents and sending email, it probably not gonna be too tough. If you've got 100,000+ lines of Excel macros, you're gonna need a pretty significant migration.
The Microsoft ones feel broken, buggy, and bloated with decades of crap. I guess there are some people using those weird edge features, but if you don’t, the Google stuff works way better.
Apparently it's not on by default, but all of my browsers do and also warn me whenever a site does not support HTTPS (and require me to explicitly click through to the unencrypted connection).
I've volunteered at events hosted in older buildings before and it's always such a top of mind thing to enforce a limit on the number of people in the building at any moment. Since these places have the capacity to hold a lot more people than can escape through the exits in the event of a fire.
All stick and no carrot. These companies would have to spend so much less effort dragging people in to the office if they just made the office a good place to work.
This seems like the most effective solution. Imagine if you knew that if you littered, there is a 100% chance you would get a $10 fine immediately. Almost no one would litter ever again, even though the fine is much smaller than the fine is in most countries.
Problem is it just takes a lot of resources to police, more than the fine revenue. But with CCTV and computer vision it's getting increasingly cheap.
Unfortunately, the US and many other countries have chosen the other path (sporadic enforcement with severe punishment) largely because it's easier to implement. There's a lot of momentum to change this but it's politically difficult at least in America.
I think that barrier may be weakening. I reckon that the people most concerned about crime are willing to sacrifice their privacy and defer to their government to prevent crime.
But I think the shenanigans of ICE are making people more aware of the importance of privacy. Look at the backlash Ring (lost dog superbowl ad) and Discord (age verification) and Nest (Guthrie case) received just this year.
The people I have in mind are the rich, poor and those who fantasize becoming wealthy and fear going broke. I’m uncertain how much these demographics account for the US population and empirically speaking I’m unsure of the gravity of the PR stirs you named. I really don’t know if privacy is the foremost concern when the types of people I’m thinking of consider ICE either.
It really seems to boil down to whether these types of people can be effectively sold on the virtue of tearing down the barriers of privacy and government. If they aren’t already implicitly sold to that then all it takes is for the powers that be to do a better job at marketing their initiative.
My city semi-recently introduced a citywide parking system. They have hired plenty of inspectors and there is like 95% chance you will get a ticket if you don't pay for the parking.
That's true but it's just like with ICOs, the so-called Web3.0 and so on - there is a percentage of people aggressively promoting these, with a part of the community getting fascinated like with everything new, then with time novelty fades and people have a more balanced view of the new tech and these things get downvoted quickly.
The solution is a social one. Most of the reason it's a problem in the first place is people defending/propagating slop as if it's worth something. The quantity isn't so high that community moderation can't handle it if it becomes socially unacceptable.
One way to combat this would be to force users to stake something. Pay 10 bucks to your account and if you misbehave by spamming or posting only AI slop, you lose it. Brings with it other problems, of course.
That's a nonsense idea because it fails to define how low-quality undeclared slop (LQUS) can accurately even be classified. Also, if money is on the line, it will be taken away even when the article is not LQUS.
I agree, but there is a slight alteration of the proposal which could work rather well. Pay $10 to get in, but no change to the procedures by which your account is revoked. This puts a price on sock puppets, while almost any legitimate, normal user only wants one account, and gets it for a trivial fee. This may also relax the pressure to monetize through ads, which could have perks.
In fairness, the bigger problem as I see in comments is accusations of slop with zero evidence, often in an unfair attempt to suppress the takeaway message of an article.
Alternatively: the companies at the top paid the necessary bribes (e.g. $100k H-1B sponsorships) and got to continue on with business as usual. The people at the bottom are the ones who can't pay the bribe and are thus hurting.
This feels like when 3D printers hit the consumer market and everyone declared that buying things was over, everyone will just print them at home. There's tons of benefits to standardised software too. Companies rely on the fact they can hire people who already know photoshop/xero/webpack/etc rather than having to train them from scratch on in house tools.
Business software is also useful because it gives companies a process to follow that even if not optimal, is probably better than what they’d come up with on their own.
The flexibility of big source of truth systems like ERP and CRM is sometimes (often) a downside. Many times these companies need to be told how to do something instead of platform vendors bending over backwards to enable horrible processes
> Companies rely on the fact they can hire people who already know photoshop/xero/webpack/etc rather than having to train them from scratch on in house tools.
Yeah, I've seen perfectly good flexible in house products abandoned because it was just easier to hire people who knew Salesforce or whatever.
But the true AI Believer would object you don't need to hire anymore, you can just get more agents to cold call or whatever :)
They became much like woodworking or power tools. Accessible to anyone who wants them, but still requires an investment to learn and use. While the majority still buys their stuff from retail.
Or rents a printer for one-off designs. Unless you 3d print on the regular it's easier to pay someone to print one-off designs. You get a printer that gets regularly used and services and a knowledgeable operator. Not at all dissimilar to fancy commercial sign printers. In a past life working at $large-uni we really did try to make those damn things self-service but it was so much easier for the staff to be the print queue.
It turns out they're really great at building toys, cosplay gear and little plastic parts for things, but in general not that useful in most people's daily lives. Kind of like Ai.
reply