From their perspective you're lacking three things: 1) credibility, 2) leverage, and 3) data.
Credibility: you're a technical founder, not a designer. Why would they listen to you?
Leverage: you do not have decision-making power on this point. The other people do not feel their position is at all threatened by your disagreement with their choice, otherwise they would not be handling this situation as they are.
Data: there's no data to support your belief; it's entirely subjective. This isn't like a technical decision where you can discuss tradeoffs like performance metrics. You could try to get data by getting user feedback, but given (1) and (2) I don't think it'd be worth it.
I think your best option right now is to realize your value to the company is not on the design side. If that's something you want to be involved in, then you need to build that credibility gradually (and be able to provide better feedback than simply "it disgusts me").
Google recently deleted the entire account of someone who had videos of vehicles in the Middle East, claiming it was extremist content [0]. He was a historian who was cataloging how vehicles are used and modified in military operations across the globe. But google’s bots (which are probably pretty similar to YouTube’s) classified it as extremist content.
So I disagree with the premise of your argument — that we’d all support the automatic removal of “ISIS propaganda”.
Mistakes will always happen. Content moderation is hard, especially at the scale of YouTube. And no - adding more human moderators wouldn't make it better.
Most people would support it. Based on your response, I assume that you wouldn't mind if YouTube recommended you some ISIS beheadings for example. Who would be to judge if the video is real or not? It could be just artistic reconstruction. Free speech absolutists would never trust YouTube to make this determination.
Why would you want to remove videos of beheadings? Can there be a better example to teach people that ISIS is a wild barbaric horde that must be destroyed?
Continuing your line of thinking, what would you want to remove next? 9/11 videos of planes flying into buildings? Holocaust documentaries? Surely, these videos can give bad ideas to viewers...
I personally agree with you. Issue is that this view is not shared by the majority of the population. Even naked female nipples are still somehow offensive to some people.
Imagine being called ISISTube. This wouldn't be good for business especially with the family oriented crowd.
> If she's performing better than them while getting paid the same, she would know that she's worth more
This is another area where pay transparency can complicate things. Jane may have the same experience and education as other employees, but much higher performance and work ethic. Unfortunately, this isn’t easily quantified, whereas the other characteristics are, which can create resentment among her peers who don’t see the other value that she’s providing.
> "more fragile white males with degrees from Princeton"
That specific language recasts (in my mind) people I might have seen as extremely confident extroverts. At this point in life, I think that the "recast" take is more accurate than the way I used to see them, but it's not something I'd have come to spontaneously. Encountering language like this helps to raise questions about what is really driving people, whether or not my own answers to that question are correct.
> Perhaps the biggest lingering issue waiting to be fixed is the Windows store. Microsoft has been working on a new app store for Windows in recent months, and rumors suggest it will be a significant departure from what exists today. Nadella has promised to “unlock greater economic opportunity for developers and creators” with Windows, and the Windows store seems like the obvious way to do that.
My greatest concern is that Microsoft will attempt to lockdown their OS the same way Apple and Android have.
That would explain why they would release a new operating system when 10 was supposed to be the last.
Precisely. I'n quite excited to see if google will make chromeOS functional for development in the sense of a meaningful, non-scrapped together existence. Bringing real Linux programs out of beta is a start.
They can and they do if you don't file, and they'll charge you 5%/month for the convenience. The IRS can even file a return on your behalf, which they do to tax protestors. If you don't even have an SSN, they'll conveniently create one for you.
This article talks about a program designed to fix the "root" of crime and homelessness. Instead of arresting people, they'd call social workers. "Success" was measured by how many people were arrested and so the program "succeeded" because they responded to 750 calls but didn't arrest anyone. But is arrest really related to how well a program solves the root of the problem?
It seems like a better measure would be something related to their actual goal. So why didn't they measure rate of property crime? Rate of homelessness? Poverty? Drug addiction? Supposedly these are the real causes of crime and homelessness.
If they did actually measure those things, I think their evaluation of the program would be different [0] [1].
>> "Denver saw significant increases in most types of property crime in 2020. In comparison to the average of the previous four years, burglaries rose 23% in 2020, larceny rose 9%, auto theft rose 61% and theft from cars rose 39%, Denver police data shows." [0]
Suppose you're Google. You know what's cheaper than investing $100m in a new chip manufacturing company? Lobbying for the government to invest $100m in the chip manufacturing company.
This is why "the economics don't line up", and "the incentives don't align". No shareholder would want you to do the financially irresponsible thing of investing in a risky, capital-intensive venture when governments can do that for you.
As a result, companies have the incentive to invest in lobbying rather than actually fund the chip production themselves. Essentially the companies believe that chip production will result in $X/yr, but investing in it themselves would be $Y/yr, whereas they could just invest in lobbying for $Z/yr, where $Z << $Y.
I'm not sure I see the problem, government is for these cases where every player individually has a cheaper option for the short term, but one that might not be as good for the city/state/country overall. I don't want Google to spend a hundred million dollars on chip production for just themselves that would add to the price of their products - but not their competitors - and also not help out the broader market situation... it's not in my interest for every company to go their own way here, either.
Ummm if the government does the investing they get all the returns. If google does the investing they get the returns. If they are lobbying rather than investing, this suggests they think the ROI would be negative.
>Usually, the local government owns the stadium, while the team and its ownership control the revenues. This arrangement leaves taxpayers on the hook for maintaining the stadium year after year, team or not.
The problem for sports stadiums seems to be a monopsony relationship. That wouldn't be true for a fab, which can sell to anyone.
It seems like this relationship is desirable because a sports team can't benefit from all the profit they generate, for example at restaurants near the sports stadium, whereas the city can, by taxing those businesses. I suppose there might be an equivalent relationship with respect to a fab, but I'm not sure what it is.
