it is not about explicitly voting down a Youtube channel to punish the creator for making exaggerated claims,
that type of action does not scale
what will happen instead is that people will develop an immunity to these types of thumbnails and you will visit less - behaviors are the main driving mechanisms
it will be boring like exaggerated burlesque facial expressions in the early movies
> It seems to me that the whole "trad wife" thing is rage-bait that the press took hold of and blew out of proportion
I don't disagree with you, but there were a couple of crucial steps before that: first, extreme views/lifestyles being amplified on social media that lead people to belief that they are more widespread than they may be, and second, people with related political beliefs latching onto and further amplifying this trend for their own political gain.
You basically made the comment that I was considering. The problem isn't whether some people want to live in specific types of relationships. The problem is how social media amplifies extremism, as you note. It makes a small minority of people doing a specific thing look like an actual trend when it isn't. Throw in monetization--people making money peddling specific beliefs as if they actually believe and live them when in fact they may not--and it's just a recipe for a mess.
I'm with you. I go out of my way to avoid advertising whenever possible, I'm critical of marketing and advertising, and I pride myself on my rationality, thinking that I'm relatively immune to advertising. But yeah, people like you and me are just one speck in a constellation of human emotion and ration.
Disclaimer: I have an iphone, apple watch, ipad, airpods, and personal MacBook. I use a MacBook for work as well. Judge me as you will.
This is about as close as you'll ever get to a CEO actually admitting that doing layoffs for the sake of the short-term (lol as if that even needs to be stated) stock price actually had a negative business impact.
I once worked for a public company that panicked if it looked like the company wasn't going to meet its quarterly earnings projection. All the actions that the company took--layoffs, getting rid of contractors (also layofs), making employees take banked PTO--for this short-term benefit negatively affected the company's ability to meet its longer-term goals. It was infuriating.
I think a lot of people buy into the fallacy that there is a single best candidate, and you must find that candidate. I choose to approach hiring assuming that there are many good enough candidates. Furthermore, hiring is the process of finding the best candidate within the given constraints on the hiring company/manager: time, effort, primarily.
A lot of software dev hiring is not on demands, to fill a pressing gap, but more like an opportunistic background process. The perfect candidate will be added to the herd, but if that perfect candidate fails to show up, the opening will remain open forever. Not hiring the almost-perfect candidate is a hedge against the scenario of the perfect one entering the market while the company is not advertising an opening.
That was my thought, too. The real problem here is that the CEOs making these unreasonable ultimatums think that the fate of the galaxy is at stake when in fact, the company will just make a little less money or something.
It's a human nature problem, and here's a pretty trivial example in a different realm:
I am a commissioner on the Parks and Rec commission for my suburb (the citizen oversight commission appointed by the city council). I often hear from my fellow residents about some problem that they want solved, and half the people who tell me about problems follow up their problem description with some form of "And if they city would only do X..."
Every time one of these issues is brought before the commission, the staff explain the 37 different factors that they have take into consideration in finding a solution. "Just doing X" is rarely feasible because of a plethora of factors that they person who suggested that was unaware of.
reply