> we won’t work on product marketing for AI stuff, from a moral standpoint, but the vast majority of enquiries have been for exactly that. Our reputation is everything, so being associated with that technology as it increasingly shows us what it really is, would be a terrible move for the long term.
It is such an “interesting” statement in on many levels.
Market has changed -> we disagree -> we still disagree -> business is bad.
It is indeed hard to swim against the current.
People have different principles and I respect that, I just rarely
- have so much difficulty understanding them
- see such clear impact on the bottom line
They spoke with respect and pointed out that, from the point of career growth, they may need to talk to someone.
They pointed out that there might be more effective ways of dealing with what the blog post author is going through.
This comment didn't make me sad at all, if anything I appreciated it.
interesting
out of all "thinking models," I struggle with Gemini the most for coding. Just can't make it perform. I feel like they silently nerfed it over the last months.
I think it is worth a separate research that modern definition of progressive thought considers eliminating/treating a genetic malfunction "unethical".
It is an important point. Our understanding of what is “disease”/“malfunction” and how to address diseases has been changing.
I can see how if we, as society,
- gain such immense wealth that taking care of/ providing support to/ humans with DS becomes so easy
- arrive to the conclusion that there is no downside in emotional health/wellbeing
- change definition of what “living full/happy life”
Then parents stop perceiving DS as a concern
This is not an attitude exclusive to progressives. The chief grievance here is that the historical “solution” to the “problem” of Down Syndrome has been abortion. Opposition comes from the pro-life movement (which is generally conservative) and disability advocacy groups (which are generally liberal).
A novel therapy that does not result in the termination of the pregnancy might satisfy the conservatives, but it does nothing to satisfy the disability advocates, who point out that these kinds of technologies fundamentally normalize the idea that they should never have been born the way that they are.
Hailing from a particularly conservative country I can tell you right now that it's not going to satisfy the conservatives, as their core belief is that the world is zero-sum and tampering with that, in their view, wrong.
As a conservative, my position on genetic intervention is about ethics, human digniity, and the sanctity of life and not some kind of blanket opposition to treating genetic disorders.
I have no moral problem with a therapeutic intervention that improves a life by treating a debilitating disorder with no cost of life.
I will have moral problems when those ideals are inevitably twisted and loosened over time to not just treat disorders, but pick attributes like intelligence, strength, skin color, attractiveness, etc.
Yesbut… is it true? MSFT is very successful long-term.
You’re making an assumption that teams having control over their work will lead to better quality of product (which i agree) and then (I assume you predict), in return, will result in better financial performance.
But is that true? I am not so sure. I worked in some banks and it is very easy to come up with better products for consumers… that will make less revenue to the banks. I also worked in big tech, and so how prioritizing UX over paying customer requests is virtually impossible.
Oh… i also observed teams ACTIVELY not wanting to take steps to improve products because it would lead to taking risks, and most corporations incentivize you to he risk-averse.
This is a very interesting topic, with few clear answers beyond “culture has to be very good to build good products”
maybe MS is a bad example, MS is also a monopoly in many respects. Most companies aren't these giants. We've all been in a situation where the C team/upper management make terrible decisions like this without concerning themselves with what the employees doing the work have to say. There are more of those types of situations than being an employee for a market sector monopoly. a company can thrive without its board of directors and handful of owners, but now without its employees.
The fact that you hate it and yet still use it explains why they can afford it to be so bad.
Also.. most people want to do their job well, very few people are aligned in what “doing job well” means when it comes to large corporations.
Improvements you wanted were not prioritized not because dev teams disagree, because their leadership needs to hit sales targets, and that probably means catering to some very specific requirements of very large orgs.
There is no malicious intent, and no unprofessional behavior. This IS big corpa working AS INTENDED.
Everyone stuck in some sort of local maxima, no one is happy and business is growing.
Market has changed -> we disagree -> we still disagree -> business is bad.
It is indeed hard to swim against the current. People have different principles and I respect that, I just rarely - have so much difficulty understanding them - see such clear impact on the bottom line