Your position hinges on the survey not being anonymous. I clicked through and found nothing that claims it was not anonymous, and these things are normally done anonymously for exactly the reason you point out: less honesty.
Do you have anything to back this up or is it simply that holding this belief helps confirm what you already believe to be true?
That links says only a quarter did it because they wanted people to quit, so it suggests that chances are this is not the reason Amazon is doing it…and you’re posting while claiming it factually proves this is their motivation? Pretty deceiving.
Because the CEOs are all more concerned with the commercial real estate market than running their company efficiently.
It’s shocking how many people have honestly bought this. I mean, I’m sure there is some truth to it and maybe somewhere, someone forced people to come back because of some real estate interests… But the CEO of Amazon almost certainly gains to benefit much more from a rise in price of Amazon stock than any real estate they might own. And even if it was the case, I dont think the board would be very happy about it.
It might be the wrong move, and maybe it is being done to get people to quit, but it’s being done because they think it means more money from Amazon.
I love posters who announce they are blocking you. Such a good person that they’ve gotta get that last dig in. Lol
Probably the best application of occams razor. lol
Confirmation bias is a hell of a drug; I always question whether I simply want something to be true or whether I have the evidence that it is true.
It’s scary that self reflection is viewed as bad faith.
? You said you had no evidence for it and it was just how you feel. I asked if you had evidence for it.
This seems to very clearly validate my question and reveal that I wasn’t confused.
Funny that you pointed out that my questioning of what you claimed was valid, but I was showered with downvotes.
Amazing.
Im not one to say you can never speak ill of the dead, but man to bash someone right after they die among a group of people that likely includes his friends requires a special type of social cluelessness, or straight up being a bad person.
I’m racking my brain trying to come up with what life situation would possibly lead someone to a position so profoundly detached from reality.
If she did endorse Trump, the harassment would have been a magnitude less. Individuals will be individuals, but the leaders of one group are denouncing harassment and violence while the leaders of the other group are inciting it.
I get the logic of this, but you feel pretty confident that it’s true. Do you have the numbers to back this up? I believe it is true, but that’s not based on any actual evidence.
No one in the military
Okay, but is the person still an officer? I mean, it is in the name. The way I see it, as a layman, it is kind of hard to ding the author for getting this wrong when they are technically correct and a laymen would consider them an officer, and the only real complaint is that colloquially military members don’t refer to them as officers.
What am I missing or wrong about?
I can’t remember a time that I’ve heard a more obvious projection, especially when it makes no sense. Who would read my post and get “triggered” from it? Lol
Look at the grammatical errors throughout their post. The cherry on top being the statement at the end being terminated with a question mark.
They also just recently had a question that includes them being on a pip.
I get the feeling that this person should be grateful that this doctor is only making enough more than they are that they would use the word “twice” to describe the salary discrepancy.
We’ve been transitioning from a dignity culture to a victimhood/outrage culture for most of my adult life. The relevant one here is the outrage culture, where people are trying their damnedest to be the most outraged. Nothing shows that you are more are outraged by something than suggesting that someone should die for being in disagreement with you.
Their framing of how AI works is grossly inaccurate. I just corrected that.
I’m with you. I’m a Senior software engineer and copilot/chatgpt have all but completely replaced me googling stuff, and replaced 90% of the time I’ve spent writing the code for simple tasks I want to automate. I’m regularly shocked at how often copilot will accurately auto complete whole methods for me. I’ve even had it generate a whole child class near perfectly, although this is likely primarily due to being very consistent with my naming.
At the very least it’s an extremely valuable tool that every programmer should get comfortable with. And the tech is just in it’s baby form. I’m glad I’m learning how to use it now instead of pooh-poohing it.
I never said anything about leaving ai unregulated. I never said anything about being frustrated. And its likely you asking for laws to be changed, not me.
I’m not even sure you’re responding to my post.
Because what they are describing is just straight up theft, while what I describes is so much closer to how one trains and ai. I’m afraid that what comes out of this ai hysteria is that copyright gets more strict and humans copying style even becomes illegal.
Simply reading the article would reveal how ludicrously incorrect your argument is.