jecxjo

US News puts the average cost to be $300k. So yeah, a bit off.

Except that RSU typically require vesting, are often not liquid enough to be useful as wages and aren't as beneficial if the company isn't going to skyrocket and be sold off.

The issue I ran into was that my team of 3 directly generated $25M in new areas of growth in a single year causing our company to have an increase of 12% gain in our profit margin. With RSU and profit sharing I saw a two hundred dollars worth of income increase that year. The next two years the industry flopped, profits were down in all areas except my team, and we started a three year pay freeze. I did my job amazing and rather than just paying me better I had to go down with the ship.

This caused me to leave along with my two coworkers. The company couldn't replace us and ended up scrapping our division losing out on that business.

One thing you will eventually find out is there is a good portion of the company who thinks they are an effective employee when they really aren't. For example I work in Software and Hardware development. In 25 years I've worked in large companies and small, big teams, small teams and teams of one. I've had many project managers and in almost all cases they have ranged from bad to pointless. The well oiled teams found the project managers only got in the way and provided no ROI to their work. So much so that in one org the PM left and they never replaced them which resulted in the teams highest productive quarters two years running.

If we were to vote I'd ask for justification for those roles and what their returns are. What actual added benefit did they bring and what problems did they cause. The issue i foresee is that every single one of them would say they were very valuable and important. But if you asked the people under them doing the actual development you'd hear the exact opposite. With the pandemic and everyone working remotely you'd think their role would become even more important but a lot of places have shown that haven't.

The thing is, for some, logic itself becomes a threat.

THIS is exactly why religion is dangerous. When one starts to have questions about logic and rational thinking it bleeds out into the rest of their lives. This generates antagonistic behavior towards science, medicine, and education. The push back on the threat, and the support to do so within the community is so subtle in the beginning that it doesn't seem absurd from those in religion.

For many Romans it was less effort than Roman gods required. There were some other benefits but really it was Constantine that got Christianity from a million followers to the dominant religion of the Mediterranean and Europe. Then shortly after that the church got power hungry and the really bad stuff started happening and no one on the outside was safe. About 400 years give or take.

That is a modern scenario where picking one's religion may not result in death. Go back just a little over 100 years and you're going to run into relgion not being an option one gets to make their own decisions about.

But then I'd ask how do you outlaw human systematic consumption of information. The camera on my car cant watch 24/7, then why should YOU be allowed to watch 24/7? What you're outlawing is the literal methodology.

This has always been an issue with my thoughts on AI. If the computer became sentient does the LLM learning rule go out the window? or is it because they are made of metal?

Their hooves are creepy when they are born.

I feel like they need a test case to figure out how to define derivative work when the creator is not human.

If i make a painting and you see it and then make one in a similar style it would be considered derivative and not a violation. In your head is a distillation of my image. It doesn't contain the image and your output would be lossy. Similarly the LLM contains statistics and not verbatim content. So the question is "how is human synthesis different than AI synthesis."

Until that is resolved a class action would probably fall apart. Individual damages would need to be determined and even a single example of "you put your stuff out to the public and aren't going aftet Joe who made derivative work..." would derail the case.

You would think that but we did have a few tens of millions of people vote for someone who said he was going to fuck up the economy and now these people are all asking what the hell happened.

Maybe we should stop assuming and start calling a spade a spade.

Your examples listed above are skipping the part they are taking issue with, "becoming a billionaire." The problem isn't that it's emotive language, its that you don't care to focus on the portion they want to focus on.

To become a billionaire you make the vast majority of your money off the backs of other people. Some do it via markets, investment, buying and selling companies and all other things "capitalism." There are others that do it through actual slavery and other extremely abusive methods. But no billionaires do the work themselves to make this money. And all billionaires could give more back to those doing the actual work, relishing themselves mere millionaires and still never have to worry about money.

Maybe we should be acknowledging when a billionaire does a good thing but not ignore the fact that they are just giving away other's hard work. Maybe the only real good act a billionaire can do is not be a billionaire.

It is kind of funny. Trump has been notorious at picking the most incompetent political allies. It almost feels unreal that he could pick so many cabinet members that fail at literally everything they do. But then he goes and picks his SCOTUS appointees and all they have to do is not do their job and he wins.

This fucking timeline...