There was a time when I would have been intimidated by a lot of those sorts of profiles, but the more experience I get the more I recognize that most of it is bullshit. Don’t get me wrong. There are some legitimately very impressive resumes in there. but it’s not the ones that think that they’re impressive. That’s for sure. Just my personal take as someone with only middling experience and skill.

Capital One more like Communism One

Edit: some more nuance here https://lemmy.world/comment/25101191 maybe not si bad as it seems…

This is definitely one of the more disappointing pieces of news I’ve read in a while. It’s not like I thought the Wikimedia Foundation was a paragon of virtue and justice, but I thought they would at least be better than this. It seems like there really aren’t very many good employers left in the tech industry ( I understand the Wikimedia Foundation covers more than tech). I really need something global remote, but… Eesh. Starting to think the better bet is to get into independent contracting for smaller businesses or something…

I love fashion and I think high end clothes are priced way more appropriately than anyone here probably wants to admit, and I have huge respect for the artistry and craft that goes into it. But a handbag is definitely not a much more complex piece of engineering…at best they could be relatively similar for certain bags. The price difference is because a lot of bags need more manual involvement by decently paid workers rather than factory slaves. And because the artists doing the designing also get a solid salary as that is the primary aspect of the product. Whereas monitor designs are comparatively not so demanding to dream up and not as important.

Yeah idk how the investors could be so dumb. Well, I mean, I do. But still. Exactly as you said, AI companies can just… Steal the data they want. Sooo

First off, that’s a difference of 0.8M, not 1.8M. So you’ve got that significance overestimated by more than 100%.

The stock dropped 22%, which a metric missed by 1.48% does not at all explain. I don’t think it’s substantial at all. They essentially hit the target. Meanwhile revenue was $70M more than expected, which would be the main value of users anyways (aside from data selling, but then of course we get into the other factor…) So how does that possibly equate to 22% price drop? It could only be because the AI partnerships were essentially the only concern. Hence why I said the only value was human UGC. Because AI corps aren’t willing to pay for that UGC, Reddits value plummets.

I’m talking about the annoying trend of stock market articles to try to explain things that hardly make sense. It’s trying to make it sound like reddit’s user count is in trouble when it’s clearly not.

Its because the title of your post sounds like you presume we keep winning, and therefore are implying that it’s not true that everyone in power is xyz etc.

The second paragraph of the body of your post reveals that you don’t actually think that, which means the title is misleading.

The first paragraph is naïve, but that’s fair given the community.

"What’s behind the move: The user discussion platform company’s latest earnings report did not announce any new artificial intelligence data licensing agreements, disappointing investors who were expecting more revenue opportunities from AI partnerships.

Revenue of $804.9 million beat estimates of $731.8 million. However, US daily active users came in at 53.2 million, just shy of expectations of 54 million. The company’s total daily active users grew by 18% to 130.3 million versus estimates of 130.07 million. "

Lmao. 53.2 vs 54, and the headline says that’s why it’s tumbling? Nah, it’s gotta be just the AI. I bet most of the reddit investors were also invested in AI stock and wanted to use reddit to pump the others. Hilarious. The entire value of Reddit is human UGC.

Least disingenuous No Stupid Questions post

Lemmy is way too small for me to be seeing the amount of reposts I do

But to the Christians, misgendering is defined as calling someone by the pronouns they “actually aren’t”, so they would consider he/him pronouns to be misgendering Page. Their notion of misgendering has nothing to do with what the person wants to be called, it has to do with what they fundamentally are. So from that point of view, there’s no contradiction in their reasoning. It’s internally consistent, and so there’s no “revelation” (ha ha) where they’re trapped into looking like a fool as this imaginary Twitter post scenario implies. So this whole hypothetical demonstration of calling God a girl still goes nowhere. Go back to my initial dialogue. See how there’s no next response for the atheist, how it ends with the atheist having nothing to say? That’s why the Le Epic Win in the original post is not what it’s presented to be. Its a bad argument. The argument is implicit, but it’s there. It’s the entire content of the post.

It’s implying that there’s some sort of hypocrisy or logical contradiction with Christians suddenly caring about pronouns being correct when it applies to God. But that entire premise is wrong, because as someone else eloquently stated, they never claimed not to care about pronouns, in fact they care about them probably more than most transgender people. They just care about them being their version of “right”. The post is very clearly meant to be some sort of gotcha or serve to Christianity. But there is no gotcha, so the whole post is stupid. Really picture the exchange:

A: “I love God, I’m so thankful for how she’s blessed me.”

C: “She? God is a man. He blessed you.”

A: “Ohhh, so now you care about getting pronouns right, but not for someone like Elliot Page, huh?”

C: “No, I always care about getting pronouns right. That’s why God is a He and Page is a she, and it pisses me off if you say either of those differently”

???

So with that in mind, we can see this post is just someone owning an imaginary strawman.

Idk, “🥺👉👈” was pretty wild

That isn’t the part that’s supposed to be funny, though. The joke is fundamentally about the linguistic ambiguity of “would you like to dance” typically implying “with me”. It’s something most people take for granted. So like, presented in a standup format the joke would be something like:

“Have you ever noticed that if someone asks you if you’d like to dance… They’re not saying anything about dancing together? (Audience chuckles)”

You could even structure the joke in such a way that it doesn’t involve someone being a jerk, maybe you’d find that more palatable. E.g:

“So anyways, one time at the club this gorgeous lady asks me if I’d like to dance. And I’m thinking, well, sure I guess. So I went up to the floor and started… (Comedian dances ridiculously, audience laughs). And when I look back at her she looks at me like I just killed her dog or something! (Audience in shambles) and that’s when I realized… Oh! You meant like… (Comedian points back and forth between himself and audience)…together? Well why didn’t you just say so?! (Audience collectively dies from laughter)”

If you couldn’t tell I don’t really like standup, lol. But the point is that the joke isn’t about misleading someone or being a jerk. Its fundamentally a language joke.

Look I think religion is stupid but so is this strawman feelgoodsy argument. So disappointing.

Idk he can just make a new account using a private frontend that does all the same blocking

I think it’s also worth noting that it’s calibrated to the person’s individual notion of justice. It’s not like all ADHD people have the same idea of what’s just or not.

is asked for sources

begs the question instead

Probably the same sort of reasons as why most American men get circumcised at birth, except for a lot less stupid. I know this is “no stupid questions”, but surely this isn’t the first tradition you’ve questioned? Why do you think this particular tradition would be any different? Hair is not so big of a deal by comparison. So maybe hair loss isn’t that big of a deal to them, and it’s more seen as something where you style it a cool way for awhile and then eventually it goes away. Pretty much every form of hair styling is bad for your hair really. Even blow drying and curling it, but people from all cultures pass down those techniques too.

Fascinating post. So rare to see something on the internet written in the heat of a moment like this.