well, eric's book tries to make the point that these good companies DO overperform the market. after reading the book this past week, im not convinced. feels like heavy selection bias.
eh, unfortunately it's not today's work that's impacted (beyond wasting some time), but this weekend's, which I thought I had wonderfully set up, taking advantage of time whilst my family's away.
Just another day for Meta in terms of embarrassing outcomes, and yet the company makes hundreds of billions of dollars per year because the only thing that matters anymore is shoving increasingly scammy and worthless ads in front of as many eyeballs as possible, even when the people with those eyeballs can less and less afford to buy anything non-essential.
I know this is Hacker News and supposed to be serious and all, but do you really think the people running Meta are capable of embarrassment at this point?
I suppose you could chalk this up to an oversight. I don't see how Meta gained from this. They've been purposeful about collecting user data and lying about it, eg: 2025 Android Tracking Incident. Shouldn't just be an embarrassment, should be much worse than that.
Cost of labor quite higher here. Especially house work. Any licensed person to work in your house you're looking at paying $200 minimum just to walk in the door. At least in the major metro areas.
Why would you care if they're licensed if they're doing yard work or replacing faucets or cutting down trees? I understand wanting some assurance for whoever will wire your whole house or will make major plumbing repairs but not for small jobs. Yes, trees can fall, but it's easy to make sure the person cutting them knows what they're doing - I've cut trees myself.
For small repairs (light switches, blown fuses, faucets, installing water heaters, cutting down trees, cleaning gutters), before I started doing them myself, I called friends who knew what they were doing, usually 50-something year old men who were jack of all trades.
Overall seems pretty good and level headed for changes at a large bureaucracy. If he delivers on no big layoffs then I think this is great for the legacy of isaacman
There are so many things where we don’t do that. There are laws against giving children so many dangerous things, because you can’t watch them constantly outside the house, and honest I think unrestricted internet is worse for a child than alcohol. I’m not saying this is the right answer, but pretending it’s just a parental problem seems oversimplifying.
It's morbidly interesting to watch public discourse on what is and isn't considered a solely-parental responsibility. For example, we seem to have more or less accepted that comprehensive sex education should be taught in school (thank goodness), in part because it cannot be assumed that all children have a parent or guardian who can or will teach them these things. And yet this same consideration barely comes up when discussing internet safety.
> it’s just a parental problem seems oversimplifying.
how/why did children survive all those generations ago where these dangerous things have existed, and all of a sudden, parents are now powerless and unable to parent?
Well for one they did not have access to 4k 60 fps incest porn at a moments notice in your pocket.
You had to go to a special store where an adult checked your age.
But I guess the better option would be to give parents the propper tools. For example every OS could have the option to set up a child account, that gives the age range to the app store / website the user visits. And the app store owner and website owner (of a certain size? Not sure) have to implement it. Just like store owners can't sell alcohol or porn mags to underage customers.
reply