Almost correct. But it's more along the lines of "I could spend 20 minutes crawling through this crate to inspect it, problem is, I have to do 4 planes an hour. Well, the last 3 were ok and my time's up, so I guess the 4th will be ok, too".

Hire employees? But we must do more with less! The consultant company we paid big money for said so!

It's quite impossible at the given cost demands, as can easily be shown in exhibit A, i.e. Boeing.

The comparison is actually apt. In both cases, workers did what they could to work around impossible demands of management in an attempt to keep their jobs.

When your options are to either follow the rules and fail to meet your targets, so you will almost invariably get fired, or to ignore the rules and meet your target, and only get fired if for some reasons the shit hits the fan, which option do you choose?

A policy is moot if your worker cannot follow it.

Given that more and more workers are facing the "more with less" bullshit, more and more of them are facing a dilemma: Follow the policy and get fired for not meeting quotas or tossing policies aside, cutting corners where there can't be any cut and hope for the best, i.e. that nothing bad happens.

Let's compare the options this worker has: Get fired for sure because you can't meet the ridiculous quotas or get fired maybe when the shit hits the fan and the plane comes down to crash and burn.

Most people will choose option two.

And this is why your policies mean jack when you don't give your workers the option to heed them.

This right there. It's a direct result of the "10% more with 10% less" mantra that consultant companies have been beating the drum for, for decades now. The ridiculous notion that it is eternally possible to produce 10% more output with 10% less personnel, every year.

At some point, that idea breaks apart. And the only way that 10% fewer people can produce 10% more output is by cutting corners on something that has already been turned into a circle years ago.

I already fail to understand why you need a different app for different webpages. Why do you need an app for Facebook, for Youtube, for whatever else where there's a webpage you can access with a browser?

Let's hope it stays that way, dies a fiery death and serves as a warning for wannabe-copycats to avoid ideas like this like the plague.

It did get press cover? Am I reading the wrong (or was that right?) news outlets?

Seriously, what?

Ok, could someone please explain to me whether I'm just living under a rock and am the only one who never heard about this new hip and trendy product, or whether this is just a very weak attempt to astroturf for yet another AI crap nobody gives a fuck about to pretend it's relevant.

Dude, get your head out of your ass. Quite frankly, if you want to make a point, make it one that is a little less ridiculous.

Most education facility today is pretty good at stunting the growth of your mind, no aid from ChatGPT required.

Could you explain then why they flock to Sweden, of all the places? It's not exactly known for its ruthless Ayn-Randish capitalism.

I can already pay with my debit or credit card for free, why the hell would I accept a 2% surcharge to pay with that junk?

Who said they won't "change their mind" somewhere down the road? It's obvious they are considering it and just telling me that they won't doesn't mean a thing. That would require me to actually trust Sony.

And at best, I'd thrust them. Into the sun.