Underrated even if it got to +100
Always ready to raise a flap, eh? I heard they just wing it.
I'm not quite dead.
I think I'll go for a walk.
Kelly and the baby... they'll have something to look at now!
So you don't suffer from this same failing?
I actively try not to, as opposed to wallowing in it the way the superstitious and religious do, which I find at turns amusing and sad, not that it matters.
And why do you think you need to help?
I don't. Not sure what you're talking about there. You might want to elaborate.
and who are you to "improve"?
Hmmm. I pointed out a cause and a consequence, along with one possible factor that can reduce the cause, and thus, perhaps, the consequence. I have no idea how you got from that to where you seem to be now.
If someone feels happy because he/she believes one plus one is three, who are you to say it's wrong?
Oh, it's not me that says its wrong. It's the universe that says it's wrong. If you think one plus one is three, that's perfectly fine with me. I don't require that anyone in particular try to actually grasp objective reality other than myself. I didn't even require that of my kids.
If pursuit of happiness is the goal, there is nothing that states that one must follow the path of science.
I completely agree. If jumping off a cliff makes you happy, or self flagellation does, or maintaining that one plus one is three does... awesome. You go, fella.
It's all about personal choice. The way I see it, you, and anyone else for that matter, should be perfectly free to make any choice you like as long as it doesn't infringe on the liberties of others, or otherwise cause harm to a non-consenting, and/or uninformed person or persons. That's my entire metric, right there, aside from animal cruelty issues, which I regard similarly.
It doesn't change anything I said, though. Doing what you want in pursuit of whatever it is you want to pursue is a whole 'nuther thing than having a clue about what you're doing.
Then why is the CEO still there? Clearly, mistakes that cost karge amounts of money do not cause dismissal at Yahoo. They do, of course, often cause weaker performance, as we have seen in Yahoo's recent scramble to unload the various enterprises they have royally screwed up.
Like, why is the universe the way it is and science won't answer that.
Science doesn't answer "Why did Santa Claus bring me a sweater instead of a choo-choo train?", either. Because the question is formulated such that it isn't a valid question. Just as the questions that philosophy (and its retarded offspring, religion) likes to say "science can't answer" (as opposed to science hasn't answered yet) are.
"Why is the universe here" is no more meaningful than "why did santa (do anything)." Both assume facts not in evidence: For the former, that there is a why (no evidence for this whatsoever); while for the latter, it assumes there is a santa (no evidence for this whatsoever, either.) In the scientific sense, neither one is a meaningful question. In the philosophical sense, all those questions do is reveal large domains of "philosophical thinking" as intellectually bankrupt.
Even very intelligent people are often variously naive, gullible, uninformed, misinformed, fearful, or simply lack critical thinking skills (as opposed to potental ability.) Or various combinations thereof. Less intelligent people, more so, and more often. All of these people are vulnerable to failing to spot the invalid posits in many "philosophical" questions without a significant amount of help. And that help is often rejected, as it is a common human failing to not be at all willing to change anything that might affect one's perception of one's self in relation to everything else.
Until or unless something can be done to improve both the overall level of human intelligence, along with considerably better education, we're going to be stuck with these kinds of invalid questions and the people that disadvantage others by inserting them into the public mindset as if they were valid.
There are myriad examples of this stuff out there. Taken from the net just now, located in only a few seconds:
"Crystal Healing Stones Bring Healing Energy To Your Health, Wealth, Spirit, Emotions and Soul."
"Jesus loves you."
"One day we will meet again on the rainbow bridge."
"God created the world for His pleasure and our good."
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"
"The beauty of the principle of similars is that it not only initiates a healing response, but it encourages a respect for the body's wisdom."
...just because someone can (or did) phrase something in the form of a question (or an answer), doesn't mean something worthwhile has been accomplished. Quite often all it does is waste resources and screw people up. Religion being the front-and-center poster child for exactly that.
tl;dr: Much of philosophy is nonsense; all of religion is nonsense; the general intellectual level is low; people resist change.
Donald Trump wouldn't know a narcissist if he was looking at one in a mirror.
Also, FYI, I just credited you for it, too.
It is idiotic to make videos to connect with them to advocate to them that they read more.
I think the idea was to make video to encourage them to write more. Said encouragement is present. Compliance, well...
I don't know, but I just renamed my custom documentation system to "wtfm", because genius.
The enterprise linked in TFS is clearly for beginners. Beginners tend to be younger. Video is pretty much the preferred information delivery method (on the receiving end) for recent generations. The majority does not gravitate towards reading (and perhaps that accounts for why the writing problem is so prevalent as well.)
If you're working at a professional level, you can already prepare good documentation, and will, whenever it's called for. You may even have developed your own toolchain for doing so.
If you can't prepare good documentation when it is needed, or won't, but think you're working at a professional level... you're wrong.
What exactly would another CEO have done differently?
From the perspective of a long-time and fairly active flickr user, one thing they could have done was given the users the features they have constantly been asking for, instead of constant "UX" changes that (a) no one wanted and (b) removed useful features.
From the perspective of a groups user, bringing the groups up to, oh, say, the 2005 level of message display and convenience might have done something for them. It would have been nice not to have to wade through pages-long dumps of people's CSS, and to have some kind of rational quoting mechanism, too.
Their email system is junk. They could simply have had someone write them a decent email client. Although I have to say, Google hasn't got one either, so that appears to be a more general failure of vision than just a Yahoo-centric problem.
I'm not sure how others feel about this, but when Yahoo tossed out the curated tree of sites and replaced it with just another clumsy search along the lines of Google's, I stopped using them to find anything. Google, which has the best search I've found so far, is awful compared to a decently curated list, which, for a while anyway, was a reasonable description of Yahoo's offering. Yahoo failed to give that effort the resources it needed, and consequently fell so far behind in keeping it up to date it became fossilized, while also attempting to monetize it in a way that was both inherently offensive and reduced its value via link-buying (much as Google has done with search)
I still go to DMOZ for many things instead of Google, because Google is nothing less than inundated with irrelevance. The problem with Google's search is that "popularity" is the underlying metric, whereas what I'm typically looking for is quality -- whereas "popularity" is the metric that reliably retrieves mediocrity. Once you get through the advertising spam, of course.
Speaking of popular, Yahoo's early bought-it property Geocities was a hive of... well, you know. But it was also 10+ million web pages that they just tossed in the garbage. I doubt that earned them any friends. At all. The stats had Geocities as the 3rd most-visited place on the web originally; good job wasting that opportunity.
And that's just what I know about. With all of the services Yahoo has offered over the years, I'm sure there were (and are) other visible points of weakness that could have been addressed. For the services I have used, not one of them was ever given the time and resources they needed to extend their potential in even the most obvious ways.
What I see here is a company that really doesn't know what its doing and doesn't pay attention to its customer input. All they do is in the crudest and ham-handed way possible, take whatever they have and try to monetize it no matter what that does to the user's experience, resources, and data. Of course you want to monetize things, but you have to monetize things that have value to the user, and if you don't pay attention to the latter, why, you could end up having to "spin off" your stuff because with all your user-abusive monetizing in place, you don't end up with, you know, users.
Power corrupts. And atomic power corrupts atomically.