Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Everything you said is right. But from my reading, their repatriation is not presented as a normal part of business growth, but as industry tomfoolery that had him convinced of something else. That also might be part journalistic spin, not sure. And hell no, I didn't RTFA.

I know my questions might have seemed rhetorical, but they are the exact type of questions I'd be asking if I were on their board or the CEO. I'd also like to ask him what he'd do to a regular employee if they made such an expensive mistake.

I'm only suggesting hypocrisy and a lack of accountability/competence. If it were a presented as a result of a change in business priorities, then he would probably have said something similar to what you did.

"...but the industry pulled a fast one convincing everyone it's the only way..." and "...discovering their annual AWS bill exceeded $3.2 million..."

Part of this guy's job is to not be flimflammed by overstated marketing claims. Did he not run the numbers beforehand?. And was his eye NOT on the costs and had to be 'discovered' as if it were hiding?

So now the same guy who was so easily flimflammed before is now claiming wisdom in the other direction. Apparently self-awareness isn't a requirement to be a CTO.

As a mid-manager grunt, would my job be in jeopardy if I was responsible for losing the company millions? I'd probably also be hoping to blame the 'industry' instead of taking accountability for a bad choice.

I'd like to make a distinction between leaders that people follow voluntarily and those that are 'leaders' by dint of an org chart and people follow them because their livelihood depends on it.

It only takes a few hundred dollars in filing fees with the state to become a CEO / executive.... not impressive by itself. Like anything else, there are good ones and bad ones, judge them not by their title but by their results.

Regardless of one's position in a company, the test of any competencies is when things are difficult, not easy. Self-proclaimed 'leaders' who then crumble when things get tough betray their deceits and delusions, and worse, lack of competency while lording immense power over the others that depend on them.

I might grumble a bit when things seem unfairly stacked against me, that's natural. But ultimately, no one cares and I have to be productive anyway.

If I can't/don't get special treatment, then I sure as hell aint gonna give it to someone who already has advantages over me.

I'm no apple fanboi or EU legal expert, but what's the basis for justifying telling a business to allow competitors access to apple's tech?

If apple prefers their walled-garden business strategy, why can't they do just that?

only if you want us to understand your point

'smug' and 'brainwashed' would also seem to apply to many others that aren't Americans... any guesses about who I might be talking about?

I wonder if it occurs to the Epic guy that there are many others that deal with him/Epic that also have to understand the idea that 'the little guy' must eat some shit because 'the big guy' is in a postion to set the terms

how many end-users and small businesses have been told to take it or leave it when pressing for a more symmetrical power balance with Epic? eg, Epic can release a sub-par, buggy game and still charge full AAA price... don't like it? want a refund? go pound sand; you're a small developer outfit doing a bit of contract work for Epic and unhappy with the lopsided contract terms? too bad, you can be easily replaced if you don't play along; no doubt Epic is just as guilty of squeezing the little guy whenever it can get away with it

the same advantages Apple/Valve enjoy is mirrored when Epic is in the driver's seat and can set the terms to give themselves the largest slice of the pie; what makes it even worse is that Epic -- unlike the true little guy -- *does* have the resources to compete with behemoths like Apple/Valve and is just unsuccessful at it

this guy's shit stinks just as bad and his whining about it is just hypocrisy; he's not that naive and plies his trade on the idea that something's value is whatever the market will pay; the 'unfair' gambit is weak but that's all he has

this has nothing to do with moral principles and everything to do with the strong can and will exploit the weak; this is how nature, business and the world works

the line between making a positive marketing spin and unethical/fraudulent representation will always be fuzzy, but the main point not to be obtuse about is that in one situation you can be ordered -- under harsh penalty of military law -- to do things against your will, such as 4 years of peeling potatoes or even being sent off to die somewhere for no explanation... you are expendable govt property; in your examples, being there is always voluntary and leaving is always an option if at any time you decide it's in your best interest to do so

so if the price for being deceived is higher, it would make sense, to me anyway, that the bar for being considered deceit should be lower

I've seen the ads in which they make the environment look very video-gamey with flying drones and lotsa screens with cool graphics everywhere... classic bait and switch as by far most recruits will be doing less fun and glamorous activities during their duty

don't get me wrong, I fully understand why they do this and it's for similar reasons the tobacco and vape industries do what they do: forthright honestly and candor would scare off the fodder required to keep these beasts fed

the only way this could ever work is with a monopoly, ie, if there were reasonable options, this would only serve to drive customers to those options

and should a viable competitor ever show up, watch YT start to play nice again

greedy bastards can't help but eviscerate their golden goose

here's the truth:

We're using AI to assess our employees and will use the results to downsize and reduce cost burdens; the people that mistakenly misread the future will not be affected nor be held accountable

No need to point out the ironic truth that AI was used to justify both the hiring and firing of these folks

Yours truthfully,
P.T. Cheatham
Director of Dirtbag Deceits

these people are no more qualified than you or I am to understand societal impacts of the technology, but both senators and these top-tech CEOs are extremely good at utilizing the efforts of others for their own gain and aggrandizement.... what do you think they will talk about in the secret meetings?

AI or anything like it has never happened before, so how does one become an expert on it? what secret access to knowledge do these self-important practictioners of deception have over anyone else?

seriously, why don't we also ask some NBA players or rock stars about what they think? they will have just as much insight on how things will play out as your average schmuck and won't be any less qualified than these machiavellian exemplars representing some of the worst aspects of humanity

there's more theater goning on here than Broadway could ever muster

"... laggy screens, bad battery life, inaccurate tracking, and watchfaces that can't even tell the correct time..."

these seem like stuff that would have been apparent in their internal QA/testing

which means they would have happily released the product unless faced with bad PR *beforehand*

what's wrong with these people? evenmole rats aren't that shortsighted

couldn't find any mention in the article.... what is your recourse if a summary mis-characterizes your content? if past history is any indication, you'll have to choose between head-butting a virtual brick wall or pounding sand

what if they label your cat video as hairy pussy stroking? kinda funny, sure, but might horrify grandma and you lose your audience

now imagine political and social content being 'summarized' by our AI overlords: more divisiveness -> more engagement -> more money to be made

propaganda 101: control definitions and labels and you have the power to control minds and thoughts

that's how it works, folks; try not to get played

Dear Golden Goose,

We would like to say we miss you and want you back. We are so sorry that we altered the deal and can't get another Golden Egg from you.

You are so special, to share your gift with the whole wide world -- and not just yacht and limousine dealerships -- is why we cut you open to find the source of your gifts.

We did not realize you could not handle it and are willing to continue as things were before. We promise to keep the cleavers out of sight and only use them when needed.

Please accept our flopsweat apology, yours truly,
- The Greedy Butcher