I just learned recently that some call those nag screens "dickovers"
It's almost worth watching the entire world turn to shit just for the great wordplay we get to have. Well, not really, but we gotta entertain ourselves somehow as we watch society burn.
One of the advantages for actual stores is that the reps can attempt to up-sell a customer with a higher cost phone, or a higher cost plan, or additional services ("Would you like fries with that burger?"). Will the app be able to convince the customer they need to send T-Mobile more money?
It's completely imaginable that they'll throw enough nag screens at you during sign-up, upgrades, or any other interaction that someone without an iron will against dopamine rush reward systems will succumb to the "Be a bro, not a dud" messaging and such. In fact, some study within the company probably already predicted they could drive unenforced upgrades through popups better than sales people on the floor could, or this wouldn't be happening at all.
He has said a lot of ridiculous things, like "I want to make rockets 100 times, if not 1,000 times better. The ultimate objective is to make humanity a multiplanet species. Thirty years from now, there'll be a base on the moon and on Mars, and people will be going back and forth on SpaceX rockets."
He's crashing rockets into Moon, you're shitposting hate at him on slashdot
We all know the answer to 'Who's looser' is always 'yo momma.'
I get that spelling is hard for some, but the word you were looking for is 'loser.' Like the guy trying to shit-post and fucking up the basics.
Bending Spoons sees decent companies that provide something end-users actually like, buys the company, then turns that thing users like into something with the vague sheen of what they used to like, but more monetized, somewhat crippled, with favorite features clusterfucked with happy-happy messaging about improvements that aren't. The fact that companies like this don't just exists, but thrive in our world, is a sign we went horribly wrong somewhere along the line. We reward these parasitic profit generators with ever escalating value and profit, while allowing the better parts of the business world to be sucked up into them like black holes, slowly spaghettifying them, stretching the positive that made them interested in whatever they consumed to slowly turn into nothing but a thin string of empty promise, that if you squint almost looks like the memory of that good thing they initially purchased.
It's super stupid, but it seems to be the way of everything now.
Which is why you get insane shit like people punching bullet points into ChatGPT telling it to expand it into a full email, and the recipient receiving it and putting that into ChatGPT to summarize it as a set of bullet points.
My company has entire levels of management communicating with each other almost exclusively this way. Thus far it's only led to a few hilarious examples of every level of management having a different idea of what direction we're taking, but it's only a matter of time until the summary->expand->summarize routine causes real, harsh, profit destroying problems. I'm not sure what kind of crack pipe gets passed around at those conferences they go to, but they're all obsessed with how much more efficient their communication is now that they've tossed a layer of AI generated slop over the top of their usual somewhat informational bullet points.
"telling engineers to focus on business results rather than maximizing AI usage" why does that even need to be said? especially for a longstanding for-profit, publicly traded corporation
Most likely due to previous orders to maximize usage of AI because the company management has decided that AI is the future whether anyone wants it or not.
Well, maybe you get rid of the AI junk and go back to looking at what a person's real-world productivity is.
Real world productivity can't be put into a pretty bar graph. Statistics are the only thing that matter when you work for a company where MBAitis is still in charge. And AI makes statistics even easy to collect, whether they're relevant to actual quality output or not.
There's a difference:
- In the case of a remote test, those who fail are not out the cost of travel and accommodation.
- In the case of an in-person test, those who fail are out the cost of travel and accommodation.
No, I'm not going to play that game. You can google yourself.
If you can't be bothered to support your statements don't expect anyone to be bothered to care about what you have to say.
It's a matter of such renowned concern that you'd have to be willfully ignorant to not be appraised of it.
See above.
You can google yourself.
You're the one claiming it's well-known, but you are unable to provide a single link.
Figures.
Stop using the word insider. It's a weasel word. There's nothing insider about this.
Insider is not a weasel word. The president providing advanced notice of material policy decisions to people who pay him so they can exploit the markets is of course insider trading.
Imagine someone finds out that the SEC is going to ban the trading of cryptocurrencies.
Imagine he tells the world.
Everyone who trades on that is guilty of insider trading
For insider trading to be insider trading it has to be an insider doing the trading or disclosing and it has to be material non public information. Your example fails both tests.
Everyone who trades on that is guilty of insider trading....
Given your example is not insider trading conclusions drawn from your incorrect assertion are themselves also invalid.
Meanwhile the Democrat lemmings here ignore people like Nancy Pelosi. Multiple people in both houses having been doing this crap for decades and you so called educated folks ignore that very obvious fact.
But but but Trump.
This is exactly why I rarely post here anymore. Your TDS has blinded you. Just like how you ignore that the DSA is taking over the DNC while you aren't paying attention.
Do you believe it is possible to ever focus on a given topic without being required to evaluate every other instance of any other situation that could be remotely construed to be similar having ever occurred in human history?
If you were in court defending a client from a murder charge would you chastise the court for their failure to enumerate all the other murders who murder too? Would you drone on about how it is unfair to single out your client while asserting the court is suffering from MDS (Murderer Derangement Syndrome)?
Maybe paying Trump $100,000/month is worth it just to get on his good side? Even if there is no value whatsoever in the access, funneling money to him might be worth it for some.
Worth it for what? If the answer is a different financial motivation, then it's just a different form of corruption.
They all do this
NONE of them have done this, not in 250 years. Not until Trump. Presidents make a lot of money after they leave office, yes, especially in recent decades. They command incredible speaking fees (Obama famously got $400k for one speech), they write books that make millions, etc. There are lots of people who are willing to give them money to get close to them, get their advice, etc.
But until Trump, none of them has used the office of the president to make money. No one else has sold pardons. No one else has set up a public stock and a memecoin to facilitate billions of dollars in bribes. No one else has brazenly sold insider secrets to stock traders.
Trump's corruption isn't just new in scale, it's a completely new thing that the United States of America has never before seen. We've seen plenty of corruption elsewhere in government, at all levels, but never in the oval office.
At least for me and many others I spoke to.
Go and use books to train AI.
Just don't fucking destroy them afterwards! Many of these are out of print, impossible to replace! How much of a douchebag do you have to be to destroy them ?
Men love to wonder, and that is the seed of science.
