Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | more diogenescynic's commentslogin

>Either the manager doesn't like the person regardless of their work abilities, or the manager is not politely savvy enough to ensure their team is being recognized for work that grows or is valuable to the business. Or they get caught up in the endlessly popular reorgs (again management failure).

This strikes me as 1000% accurate from my work experience. I see people who do amazing work but get unrecognized and then move on while other people do mediocre work but put a huge effort into self-promotion and end up being promoted despite the work not being great... The reorgs also seem like a way to kneecap the employees and lower expectations.


Every job I've ever had started great with a small team who was actually interested in the company and its goals. Then eventually the company scales up, gets acquired, or IPOs or some other sign of maturity and a new group of leadership is brought in from a legacy/Fortune 500 type of company. That new group of leadership brings their own cabal/clique and they only promote themselves and start slowly pushing out the original employees and workers who got the company to where it is... the smart people see what's going on and move on to other companies as it slowly becomes hijacked from within and at the same time 'matures' and becomes a slug and incapable of improving or adapting.


Are you sure you're not just seeing the transition of a company from a growth company to a value company? I.e. "there is no growth potential left. Let's dump it on the public", and then a new leadership team comes in slashing costs to juice profits, because there's no way to increase revenue. Because that's certainly a phenomenon as well.


That's definitely part of it, but I've noticed there's almost always a shift when companies get to a certain size and start bringing in leadership in waves from other companies and it really changes the culture and dynamics of how the company functions--usually not for the better.


You can’t trust corporations to respect or protect art. You can’t even buy or screen the original theatrical release of Star Wars. The only option is as you say. There are many more examples of the owners of IP altering it in subsequence editions/iterations. This still seems so insane to me that it’s not even for sale anywhere…


I don't understand why you're getting downvoted. So many beautiful things have been lost to perpetual IP, e.g. old games that could be easily ported by volunteers given source code, which can never be monetised again.

Sometimes people create things that surpass them, and I think it is totally fair for them to belong to humanity after the people that created them generated enough money for their efforts.


> You can’t even buy or screen the original theatrical release of Star Wars

You can actually, the 2006 Limited Edition DVD is a double disc version one being the original version.

However they are not DVD quality because they were transferred from LaserDisc and not the original film stock


Even those aren’t accurate to the 1977 film.

To pick an arguably-minor but very easy to see point: the title’s different.


Self-reply because I’m outside the edit window: the dvd “original” releases are based on the laserdisc, but supposedly they modify it to restore the pre-1981-re-release title, so I’m actually wrong!

I can’t find out if they fix the 3% speed-up from the laser disc. The audio mix, at any rate, will be a combination of the three (stereo, mono, 70mm) original mixes, like on the laser disc, so identical to none of them. The source should predate the replacement of Latin script with made-up letters (not conceived until ROTJ then retrofitted on some releases of SW and Empire) so that’ll be intact unless they “fixed” it.

Still stuck with sub-ordinary-dvd-quality picture, as far as official releases go, so that’s too bad. Oh well, fan 35mm scan projects solved that problem.


I have these DVDs and you are right. But still the closest thing to the OG theatrical version officially available.


Do you find that Gemini results are slightly different when you ask the same question multiple times? I found it to have the least consistently reproducible results compared to others I was trying to use.


Sometimes it will alternate between different design patterns for implementing the same feature on different generations.

If it gets the answer wrong and I notice it, often just regenerating will get past it rather than having to reformulate my prompt.

So, I'd say yeah...it is consistent in the general direction or understanding, but not so much in the details. Adjusting temp does help with that, but I often just leave it default regardless.


Why Gemini? Just because of the closeness between the two companies already or is there a technical reason? I like Gemini the least because each search results in slightly different hard to reproduce identically results... I find I like LibreChat the best and then just connect it to all the other LLMs like ChatGTP, Claude, Anthropic, etc. from there.


"Are you a nose or mouth breather?"

"...I'm a butt breather."

Fix sleep apnea with this one weird trick!

Why are new CPAP machines so uncomfortable?


I think we can now finally spell it as we've always been tempted to. Continuous R.. A.. P


Why would an H-1B holder even be eligible for a program like that? Makes no sense.


Amazon has really gone downhill in quality lately. It feels worse and worse and is more expensive all the time. They need competition. Walmart doesn't seem to be a true threat.


TiVo was one of those clever incremental improvements that comes out and becomes ubiquitous. I remember a friend having it in 2001ish and it was so cool at the time.


Another way of looking at it is that it's becoming not ubiquitous, but extinct. In streaming, an ad-skipping device is too customer friendly to be allowed to exist. Everything the tech industry recreates is more user-hostile and privacy-invading than its pre-existing counterpart. Cable didn't innovate unskippable commercials.


There’s a word for this but it escapes me that describes how a lot of modern tech is actually a step back for consumers but it’s more beneficial/profitable.


Cory Doctorow said it best: "Enshittification" https://doctorow.medium.com/https-pluralistic-net-2024-04-04...


It's called capitalism.

User hostile will always be more profitable.

It used to be impossible to be this user hostile. You could not build a VCR that was unable to record the Superbowl.

Tech fixed only that.

Enshittification is just what capitalism means

Preventing capitalism from doing exactly what it wants to do requires regulation and enforcing competition. Competition does not happen naturally. Competition is expensive and low profit and kills businesses, so they try to avoid it.

Gas stations next door to each other don't do price wars anymore, because it demonstrably did not improve profits. Sure, you could lower your price slightly and maybe get a few more customers than you do now, but they will just lower their prices and at the end of the day you both end up making less money.

So you just don't compete. Instead of lowering your price, you match their price.


It's a tax on dumb people and addicts. It's bad for society because it's just draining resources from people who probably can't afford to lose them.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: