The framers separated the branches so the legislative, executive, and judicial balance one another. What they didn't account for was all 3 being corrupted at the same time. I've been telling friends we really don't have a defense from this. Even if we held another election the powers that be can run the same playbook again. I'm convinced the US will cease to exist as a democracy in the next 10-15 years.
The framers also proceeded to separate the legislative branch into two pieces, substantially hamstringing its ability to serve as a check on the other two branches.
They may not have been able to foresee the sheer levels of corruption we have today, but they should have been able to see that in trying to keep Congress from becoming too powerful, they made it too weak to do its job. The fact that Congress has hundreds of members, plus the veto in the executive branch, plus the Supreme Court being able to overturn legislation, was plenty to keep it in line.
It was inevitable that the executive branch would end up taking over a lot of their functions.
The intended defense is that we all march on Washington armed to the teeth and shoot dead every last politician standing and start over.
Of course that made a lot more sense in the 18th century than it does in the 21st, we tend to view states that routinely engage in violent coups as failures, and the man who famously said of Shay's Rebellion that "the tree of liberty must from time to time be refreshed with the blood of tyrants and patriots" ran from Monticello like a coward when the British showed up and left its defense to his slaves.
But the last line of defense is supposed to be "we just kill them all." What the founders didn't anticipate was that the militias would side with the tyrants, or that society and its morals would advance to the point where political violence was no longer seen as a noble act except by extremists.
One of the tools we use was bought by PE last summer. When it was time to renew our support contract had tripled in price. I use it across 10 projects so our costs went from $200k to $500k. I let our account manager know this was unacceptable but even his hands were tied. Cancelled those contracts and let them know we were retooling with a competing tool and opensource to fill those gaps. The impression I got was we weren't the only ones. Sales were getting squeezed between customers bailing and PE management wanting to stay the course.
I've seen PE make businesses more efficient by reviewing all contracts and dropping or renegotiating ones that no longer align. Closing product lines that aren't profitable. But that is year 1-2. By year 3 they start the squeeze, layoffs, asset selloffs (stripping), and lowering quality, raising prices. That is where the real teeth of wolf are shown.
> When it was time to renew our support contract had tripled in price.
Currently in PE hell myself. Company I work for was bought out few years ago when the owner cashed out. Right out of the gate it was a numbers go up game. New sales person was hired and their first order of business was - drum roll please - triple prices! Customers balked. Some walked. In addition, some employee benefits evaporated, vacation time cut drastically, shitty health insurance switch, employee perks like the monthly pizza Fridays were canned as if ~$500/mo in pizza was going to bankrupt the company. Meanwhile, employee morale is at an all time low and quality has faded.
Perhaps there is good PE out there. Somewhere. All I see are vampires.
PE remains a source of complete fascination for me. The game is clearly rigged to produce bad outcomes at a societal level (eg no company loaded up with debt to finance buybacks/dividends and just eps ended up in a better long term financial position) - but we're completely incapable of doing anyhting about it.
Yes, that is typical for a certain kind of management. Only costs that are visible and easily measurable are taken into account. Invisible costs or costs that are hard to measure are ignored, even though they may amount to a whole lot, up to the ruin of the company. Employee motivation is one example for the second type of costs, while the 500 bucks per month for pizza were easily seen and cut.
It’s interesting how accurate this is to my experience back in like 2015/2016. Almost verbatim the same playbook. If they all utilize the same playbook, it seems like there’s an opportunity to use AI + skills playbook to trim the fat and streamline these PEs firms. I’m sure it could reduce headcount, lower PE management fees, etc
This is just the design of a PE fund. They run on a fixed cycle, so early on they heavily invest into their portfolio with the aim of resolving that risk and maximising the sale value by the end of the cycle.
In principle, I don't think there's anything wrong with this. All investment expects a ROI over some time horizon. Public companies do the same thing. Anyone who founds a start-up is doing it too. The only real distinguishing feature of PE is how successful they have become at aggressively optimising for market value.
The issue is that the sale value at the end of the cycle can be massively influenced by cynical financial engineering. This seems to me to be more of an issue with how every institutional investor apparently now prices companies purely on reductive metrics like EBITDA x the industry standard multiple.
The cause of the rot is widespread over-confidence in dumb financialization models shaping the system.
(Or, since it's HN: if your machine learning model is training well, but misaligned with real life: do you blame AdamW?)
> how successful they have become at aggressively optimising for market value
They use money to turn value into money, which they then use to turn more value, into more money. And in the end, they have a lot of money, and all of the value is gone.
That's only possible if the financial system is valuing things systematically incorrectly.
IFF a company is truly, honest to god, less valuable than the sum of its parts, then it (or the subset that would have more value to someone else) SHOULD be dismantled, and those resources sold and reallocated to more productive use. You probably make these sorts of decisions in the capacity of your own personal finances without even thinking about it.
On the other hand (and what I believe is likely happening is) if cynical financial engineering is allowing you to turn a useful company that's valued poorly by the market into a useless company that's is paradoxically highly valued by the market, in the short term, and that keeps happening over and over again, then the tools used to calculate the market value are wrong.
This is illustrated by how PE commonly trashes trusted brands. A brand doesn't show up in your EBITDA. If you trash a brand quickly enough by cutting costs and quality, some institutional sucker will buy the company because they haven't clocked that the current EBITDA is elevated due to asymmetry in how quickly the costs come off and how quickly the revenue falls off after burning the brand.
They are committing fraud in the high trust society. Literally sucking blood from our kids and grandkids who would have to rebuild, if that’s even possible
> That's only possible if the financial system is valuing things systematically incorrectly.
Well… yeah. I mean, it seems clear that the market is pretty bad at valuing companies. At the very least, valuations are based on a combination of (a) measurable attributes, and (b) vibes. (a) will always be incomplete, and runs into all of the same measurement problems that everything else does. And (b) is really unreliable.
Plus, PE companies are not especially interested in long timelines, whereas companies can eventually provide a lot more value that they’re worth right now.
And that’s not even getting into situations where they own enough of the market to not care about losing customers.
> PE companies are not especially interested in long timelines, whereas companies can eventually provide a lot more value that they’re worth right now.
The value of a company does include the value of future returns. The standard model is net present value. In theory, if the market is valuing those future returns correctly, a PE fund would probably just do the value maximisation through investment and genuine business rationalisation, and skip the financial engineering phase of the cycle. I believe this is actually what most PE managers would prefer to do. They generally don’t actually want to burn their efforts for a short term fake valuation boost. They are still people after all. It just seems to be what the market wants them to do, and they prefer money.
> the market is pretty bad at valuing companies
The market has always been bad, but probably more randomly bad, historically. Different people had their own finger-in-the-air methodologies and an estimated market value of a company had a lot more random noise around it.
The issue is now that ~every large institutional investor is valuing companies in the same wrong way, which creates opportunities for, essentially, an arbitrage between reality and their dumb models which these types of PE funds are exploiting.
It also creates systemic risk to the financial system. When everyone is making the same mistake, “independent” market participants aren’t really independent. This is in essence what any bubble is, but usually isolated to people misreading the fundamentals of a particular sector. If the techniques behind financialisation are themselves a bubble, however, we could be in for one hell of a pop if the market realises. Like when the market realised they’d been valuing subprime mortgage books wrong in 2008.
> What sort of institutions would try to take on operating such a business?
Essentially anyone - other PE funds, competitors merging, the general stock market if you take it public. And they're not wrong want to buy it - there's a valuable business there - they're just bad at assessing the right price.
> And when does word get around, and the pool of suckers dry up?
One born every minute. And it's hard to even notice you're being taken for a ride as opposed to mismanaging the business you bought or just being unlucky.
“ In principle, I don't think there's anything wrong with this. All investment expects a ROI over some time horizon”
Huh? Why is there nothing wrong? Yes they wouldn’t make the investment if they didn’t think they had a way to get ROI, but how does that entitle them to one at any cost or make it necessarily moral?
As an extreme example, If I invest to create a company that is clearly exploitive and addictive, nothing is wrong in principle and I’m entitled to my roi?
Bringing morality into it opens a whole can of worms that I don't think we have the tools to answer.
My view is companies don't have a conscience, and any expectation that they are going to independently act with moral righteousness is unrealistic. Any perceived conscience is either for marketing (green/pinkwashing), or the sum of the morals of their owners multiplied by their willingness to exert any moral authority over the company.
Besides, if you try to imagine a company having an independent conscience, what even would that conscience be based in? I'm vegetarian and think it's immoral to eat meat, but obviously I'd be insane to expect companies to divest from meat based on my peculiar moral position.
In most cases, people do not exert any moral authority over anything they own. Do you actively select your pension investments based on your morality and vote in the shareholder meetings? If you do, I'm genuinely pleased and happy that someone is. But the reality is most people don't give their investments any thought beyond "line goes up", so companies end up acting as ROI maximisers.
So: the main way we enforce morality on companies is ultimately the government. If you want companies to act morally, you set the rules such that an ROI depends on following our democratically agreed set of regulations. Maybe that even harms economic growth but we still consider it worth it (which is typically how we think in Europe, but look at our economies are doing!). However, the company and its investors are still acting as ROI maximisers.
That is a baffling response, no one suggested corporations have consciousness.
The poster said “I don’t think there’s anything wrong with this” are they a corporation? If they are, apparently they do have consciousness because they say “I think”
And yes some people do in fact try to vote with their dollars. Canadians are doing it plenty right now for an easy example.
That companies’ sole purpose is to maximize shareholder value, usually near term, is basically a toxic social construct and fairly recent. It’s not grounded in anything other than greed.
> By year 3 they start the squeeze, layoffs, asset selloffs (stripping), and lowering quality, raising prices. That is where the real teeth of wolf are shown.
To play devil's advocate:
Doesn't this also open the market to new entrants?
e.g. young person looking to start a HVAC company in the old days couldn't compete with the established firm that already had contracts and the local market wasn't big enough for two players.
If the established firm gets bought by PE and driven into the ground, wouldn't the newer more nimble firm now have a better competitive market position?
As long as customers choose services based on quality.
The HVAC for example - the large firms around you do not run HVAC/plumbing/electrical, they run marketing companies that happen to schedule and bill H+P+E service appointments.
That being said I've never heard or encountered a single services company in the US that can't find business, in fact it's the opposite. They're trying not to drown themselves in front of a fire hose.
> The HVAC for example - the large firms around you do not run HVAC/plumbing/electrical, they run marketing companies that happen to schedule and bill H+P+E service appointments.
Maybe if you’re talking about the small residential market, that’s not where the money is.
The large HVAC/Electrical/Plumbing contractors in my area all perform their own work, including the one I work for. Large contractors do commercial and industrial work, not service calls for homeowners. Doing service calls homeowners sounds like a nightmare, personally.
Bain Capital just bought Service Logic which is a holding company for HVAC contractors. They own a couple of the local HVAC shops and they all have their own PMs, sales, estimating, and field staff.
> As long as customers choose services based on quality.
If the market doesn't reward this then maybe quality isn't important to the customer. Could be price, location, availability, etc. - PE can absolutely create that value even when they roll up 70% of your local HVAC market.
I think part of it is that as the incentive for new entrants goes up, some of those entrants are downright awful. So, there’s a risk of getting someone terrible, the reward of getting someone awesome, and the existing choice of getting predictable mediocrity.
A lot of small business owners in the trades are pretty bad at the business side of things, even if they do great work.
Yes, if it is possible. The issue when economic strip mining becomes the best strategy are usually from somewhere deeper in the system. It wouldn't be a shock if the root cause was some inane regulatory decision that means the market isn't being allowed to reach a sensible equilibrium.
A lot of markets can't support more than a couple of competitors. And in many cases, you can't easily open a new company because of upfront expenses. E.g.: an emergency room.
> And in many cases, you can't easily open a new company because of upfront expenses. E.g.: an emergency room.
Let me introduce you to the Certificate of Need.
If you want to open a new hospital or facility like this in a town, you need a Certificate of Need from the Department of Health in your state. This ostensibly shows that there is a need for your facility because it is underserved. In actuality, it asks your competitors to say whether they'd reduce services or close beds if you opened your facility. While there is some community research etc., a lot of it comes down to "do your competitors think they can stay profitable enough if you open up shop?", and if they don't, no CoN for you.
This is true but to use your example of an emergency room:
It's not uncommon in more rural areas to find a business that is essentially "more than an urgent care but less than an emergency room". e.g. they aren't doing trauma surgery but they can deal with broken limbs, severe lacerations etc that an urgent care couldn't handle.
My point is that while it's true that there are "step functions" in certain services, this is not always the case.
When it's an essential service for "everyone", and the economics make healthy competition unworkable, the traditional solutions have been municipal ownership and publicly regulated utilities. Those include Fire Departments, Water & Sewer Dept's, Electric & Gas companies, ...
I remember watching a discussion about privatizing the local fire department aka the town pays a private company to run the fire department.
Opposition folks use the line:
"You used to have a shield on your building that denoted you had paid for fire coverage. The old fire departments would drive past the unshielded buildings while fighting the fires."
(this is, of course, no longer the case but love to mention this discussion when ever privatization comes up)
This is fairly recent. And of course even if you have coverage, there's no real guarantees.
Grants Pass, Oregon, has privatized fire. And there's three companies that service it, one is good, one is alright and the other... well, I was going to tell you to watch a YouTube video but after years its been deleted. Some hints: Title "Worst Fire Department in America". They roll up to a fully involved house fire with two engines that are 50+ years old, are hamstrung by the fact that they are staffed with kids in jeans and wildland coats (bunker gear, let alone SCBA, are nowhere to be seen), actually getting water on the fire is an issue because 1) someone has to sit in the cab to keep their foot on the throttle to give the pump any power (this "notmally" is controlled from the panel) and even then the pump is screaming at 3000+ rpm about to die any minute (this is maybe 2, 2.5 times what the pump runs at), there's no sense of strategy.
They call for mutual aid from Rural/Metro who shows up, helps them get a little ground on the fire, only to be told to leave the scene (so the company doesn't have to pay them) and the fire predictably takes over. It was horrific.
At least, though after too many of these calls, the Oregon Fire Marshal actually de-certified this company.
Unless the new company ends up more competitive than the pre-PE company, does it matter? Thats not a good outcome, thats just a period of bad time between 2 good times.
Medium / large companies won't take the risk on smaller operations selling a new focused tool unless it's a major pain point. They'll pay more for less risk, assuming the PE-managed company will go out of their way with account management to address all their concerns.
AVGO/Broadcom in some way acts like a big PE firm, rolling up other software companies, integrating them into their huge suite of offerings, ousting the new integrated offering's competing tools from the customers environments and selling the increment, and cutting off smaller customers not willing to subscribe to the huge suite.
Companies have finite attention. Taking on the risk of switching tools often has a higher cost than paying more for the existing tools. There is a significant opportunity cost offsetting the savings. Trying to compete on price with a tool a company already uses is usually an exercise in futility.
A core function of enterprise sales is figuring out where that opportunity cost threshold is. PE often targets industries that are currently (in their estimation) priced well below that threshold.
Because capitalism and customer brand awareness don’t work like your Econ class told you. There is a lot more nuance, starting with the inertia of customer’s awareness of brand reputation. But don’t listen to my ramblings, this comment in this thread does a better job than I would:
sure. not just that. certainly part of the issue is that the market is not perfect information.
but there are plenty of other reasons as well.
starting a new venture, whether from the foundation of an existing company or doing a new one takes investment and carries risk. maybe the sales relationships the existing company had were the results of decades of investment. maybe the ownership or the employees had a specific skillset or maybe they used tooling that could be bought easily anymore. maybe they had an important and established relationship with suppliers.
maybe PE moved in because the business was viable, but not really growing and there isn't sufficient upside to motivate investors.
or the business only existed because the owner just loved that thing so much and funded it at a near-loss out of family money.
or the business was based on a huge capital investment or ownership of property in a key location that happened 20 years ago and isn't possible to replicate because of changes in the environment.
there are 1000 reasons why these things aren't spherical cows.
Seems like their might be an opportunity to start a private equity that buys extracted software businesses for pennies on the dollar and then revive those businesses with actually valuable (to the customer) practices
Or maybe by then nobody trusts the name of the original company and it's just useless
Sharp fast-movers poached the extracted software business' last remaining reliable clients and clueful devs while you typed that post. It is now worth its weight in Herman Millers.
A HOA on a house never made sense to me. There are no amenities they provide worth what you pay. Condos in are different story. You're using shared resources in a limited space. Condos in a bustling urban core are great. A condo in the middle of the suburbs makes no sense.
Let's not be overly dramatic about that period. Apple was not days away from going bust. They were months away from filing bankruptcy. They were still a multi-billion dollar company even then. They just had very bad supply chain management. A bunch of old Macs sitting in warehouses not selling and too many people on payroll without any clear objectives. As Steve put it, "the ship was sinking and Gil (D'Amelio) was worried about which direction we were pointing."
The Apple board had hired a series of presidents who, in the short term, were good for the stock, but bad for the company strategically. The one good thing they did was hire a guy who didn't give a shit about any of that, tore up the old products and wanted a clean start. Thus, the iMac and iBook was born.
> Apple was not days away from going bust. They were months away... They just...
This is historical revisionism, and there's a lot of it around, where Apple is concerned. Since those days, Apple has done a great job of controlling the narrative in the media, and has managed to bury a great deal of what was written back then.
Microsoft was in the middle of one of their antitrust investigations, where they were accused of monopolising the market for computers. They had demonstrated others in the courtroom, running non-Microsoft OSes and office suites, including an Amiga and a Mac. But Commodore had already gone bust, so there was only Apple left.
Then came the news that the previous post was referring to - Apple was on the brink of bankruptcy. By all accounts of the time, Microsoft absolutely shat themselves, expecting the biggest fine in antitrust history. They could not allow Apple to fail, so investing was their only option. Nowadays, even that investment is sometimes framed as yet another amazing feat that could only be carried out by the deity that is Steve Jobs. Jobs even had to drop their still-ongoing OS look-and-feel lawsuits against Microsoft as part of the deal.
The Microsoft deal was originally negotiated by Gil Amelio, and while the monetary investment is what got the headlines and is what people remember, the most important part of the negotiations to Apple was that Microsoft committed to keep developing Microsoft Office for the Mac, which they had been threatening to cancel due to the platforms insignificance. Without Office, the Mac had no future.
Yeah that was a big part of it, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it more important than preventing immediate bankruptcy.
"We'll give you a wodge of cash and we'll keep supplying Office for Mac, so you can continue to supply the market with a rival to our OS at a volume that's insignificant to us, but just significant enough to prevent Windows from falling under the DoJ's definition of a monopoly".
Not sure what point exactly you are making. But the Wall Street Journal had a bunch of stuff about Apple engaging what was later known as 'Enron-style accounting'. They were a big company, and they did have a serious cashflow problem. So they needed a bailout from someone. (which happened to be Microsoft rather than wall street)
Also disagree with GP's point - Apple is definitely not Next. Next was an enterprise software company. If they were more successful they would be in the same category as Oracle.
What? Next an enterprise software company is one of the weirdest takes i’ve ever heard in my 3 decades in the industry. They were a workstation manufacturer with impressively cute UIs and an interesting software stack over MachOS
NeXT became an enterprise software company when it shut down its hardware division around 1993. At first it only sold its operating system, which got ported to x86, PA-RISC, and SPARC. Then, NeXT started selling development tools and libraries. The OpenStep API was developed as part of a joint project with Sun. OpenStep is an Objective-C API that is based on NeXTstep’s libraries, but made to be portable. OpenStep was the native API for the OPENSTEP (note the capitalization) operating system and was also available for Sun Solaris and even for Windows. I have a CD named OPENSTEP Enterprise, which is installable on Windows NT and Windows 95. There was also Portable Distributed Objects, which was NeXT’s take on distributed objects, which was big in the 90s (like CORBA). Finally, NeXT had a web server named WebObjects that had major customers such as Chrysler in 1996.
At the time Apple purchased NeXT, NeXT was definitely an enterprise software company. The black workstations were gone, the operating system was not marketed to casual users but to developers and others who needed software that used the OpenStep API, and it sold various developer tools.
All that is true, but only the first part of the story. The OpenStep stuff was also not really successful and effectively became a very expensive MS Windows dev tool (or least that's where 99% of revenue came from).
Next's only real successful product was WebObjects. (Which imo was a terrible take on a web server framework and it was just about to be obliterated by J2EE when Apple bought them out.)
eta: I guess its fun to romanticize this and pretend they only made cool black computers and portable unix software. But if Next was successful, HN would hate their fucking guts.
I can believe that, but I recall some tradepress article about more than 100 companies selling non-java 'web middleware' who got bowled over by J2EE, and otherwise Next would have just been another one of those. That was Sun's strategy, not Next's.
WebObjects was fundamentally just a bad abstraction, so good thing too.
Hey PJ, I like your posts because you have the historical background on a lot of this stuff that industry has mostly forgotten.
But... Since you mentioned it, I actually have read J2EE and WebObjects documentation. And I conclude that WebObjects was shit. It drew the 'Web MVC' line at the completely wrong place. Nobody ever cared about about DOEs or whatever, they just wanted a database driver. You look at this huge pile of industry crap and its no wonder why Rails was successful.
Three decades ago, they would relentlessly snailmail spam us with these weekly industry tabloids like 'ComputerWorld' and 'PCWeek'. These were always fun to read at lunch, even if they were all obvious advertisements, but certainly better info than vaguely remembering something from your stoner phase and then sticking your junk out.
Yeah, I was just about bodily ejected from a BeOS demonstration when I asked how the slides were printed (at that time, BeOS did not have print drivers).
I agree. While it's definitely technically possible for Apple to transform BeOS into a more Mac-like experience much like how OPENSTEP was transformed, what saved Apple wasn't Mac OS X alone (which wasn't available for consumers until 2001), but Apple's cleaning up house and then gradually launching a revitalized product line, which brought in many new customers (especially the iMac). These things encouraged software developers to keep targeting the Mac and also bought time as people waited for Mac OS X. Apple also did a good job with Mac OS 8 and 9.
I don't think Apple under Jean-Louis Gassee would have successfully made these steps. Apple probably would have ended up getting purchased by some larger tech company by the end of 1999; Apple almost got purchased by IBM sometime around 1992-1993, and in early 1996 Sun made a serious proposal to buy Apple.
>> They just had very bad supply chain management.
The crazy thing is Joe O' Sullivan had set out a two month training for Tim Cook to learn the supply side of the company. Cook mastered it in two weeks and O' Sullivan was forced to step down a lot sooner then he anticipated.
You could easily say it was Cook, not Jobs that saved the company.
With the utmost respect to Tim Cook, Apple was saved by the
iMac, which was designed and built in the year leading up to his hire. Everything after that, though, he certainly deserves more credit for than he gets.
>Let's not be overly dramatic about that period. Apple was not days away from going bust. They were months away from filing bankruptcy. They were still a multi-billion dollar company even then.
So? No shortage of "multi-billion dollar companies" that became footnotes. Blackberry. Nokia. SGI. ...
Let's be overly dramatic, cause it's more accurate to how bad they had it.
Nokia is hardly a footnote, they even own UNIX birthplace nowadays.
People only know Nokia Mobiles, however Nokia Neteworks never went away and is more than healthy, owning plenty of key telecommunications infrastructure world wide.
>Nokia is hardly a footnote, they even own UNIX birthplace nowadays.
It's not exactly the pinnacle of corporate achievement owning a non-relevant for decades labs. Might as well own the birthplace of ENIAC too.
But also not very relevant to the discussion: Nokia had the infrastructure busines to rely on, while it's consumer side tanked. Apple only had the tanking consumer side. That side of Nokia is what we're comparing it with.
I must have missed the bit where Steve Jobs was trying to create “legion” of his offspring, supported far-right parties in Europe and tried to foment civil war in the UK.
Even then, Musk didn't cut fat and then produce multiple revolutionary products. He tanked Twitter's ad revenue and wound up with a much smaller business that had to get bailed out by SpaceX, otherwise it doesn't pay for the acquisition costs.
Keep in mind Apple was dispersed across a multitude of confusing and overlapping products, from computers, to PDAs, cameras, scanners, printers (laser and inkjet), application software, servers, things made by Apple, and things that only got Apple's label, and so on. A common complaint was that not even Apple employees could figure out which Mac was more powerful just from the model number.
Jobs simplified the lineup - two sets of laptops, two sets of desktops, one professional, one personal. This shut down a significant part of the operations across the board.
I am no fan of Jobs, but ... his goal when he returned was to "right the ship" which is his mind translated into "create cool products". You might think that he & Apple succeeded at that, or you might not, but I don't think that you can dispute that this was the goal.
Musk had no similar goal for Twitter other than to turn it into a platform for his techno-fascist creed. The only complaints about Twitter that he wanted to act on were that too many people were mean to techno-fascists.
You are implying that firing a lot of people is a bad thing, or at least that firing a lot of Apple or Twitter employees is a bad thing.
I don’t think I’m really that qualified to stand in judgment of the Twitter employees, but after the massive house cleaning, the only major negative changes to the company’s fortunes that I know about is that a lot of liberals decided to flee the platform. But that doesn’t seem connected to the layoffs - that would’ve still happened because of either their policy changes or his overall unpopularity with that crowd. We didn’t see any more notable stability problems with the platform than it had at any point in its long existence. And new features kept being shipped.
In the case of Apple, given that the company was so close to insolvency, I don’t see how anybody could seriously argue that most of management was in severe need of replacement. And when you’ve built an organization to do what turned out to be a lot of the wrong things, it’s likely that a lot of roles really do need to be replaced with different job descriptions.
The only way you can argue mass layoffs are always categorically bad is if we are viewing companies as jobs programs rather than pursuing any other mission (and I’d argue that this holds true even if that mission isn’t to make money).
That's how chapter 11 type bankruptcy works. The business continues to run but the debtors are now the owners. There's also chapter 7 where the business shuts down and stripped for parts to pay the debts.
While I was in uni, one of my friends was a young woman from a conservative East African family. She was pursuing multiple degrees and multiple majors. She got accepted to our school and it was the first taste of independence and freedom for her. Once she graduated she was culturally expected to get married and have children right away. Careers for women were not common. So as long as she was in school her family paid for it. We lost touch but I like to assume she is a multi-hyphenate post doc by now.
I've been using Meshtastic for years. Still have a few Heltec v2 nodes running. It's been a lot of fun. It also encouraged me to get my HAM license since most of the local meshtastic/meshcore users are also in the radio clubs.
It reminds me of the early internet. In the early 90s the entire list of URLs could fill a notebook. And it was my first exposure to P2P nets. Meshtastic is a bit like that where it doesn't work well until you have a large enough community of nodes and gateways.
I tried meshtastic but there is literally nobody around me.
It's like trying to get friends to use signal. I've moved to Meshcore recently and it gets me connected to the rest of the UK. But it took me 2 dedicated repeaters.
I love the meshcore homesassitant plugin, managed to setup some alerts to send out a message on a private channel every 5 minutes if I lose power as an example.
Nice to hear your experience, as it sounds similar to where i'm currently at. I'm in the south of Norway and there's not much activity on Meshcore yet. I had set up a repeater on a nearby hill, and then one Saturday I started receiving messages in the public channel. At first I thought someone was passing by in town, but I soon realized (and confirmed) that these were messages from Denmark! Some were 200+ KMs away (mostly over sea). I was chatting to people and even able to login to a remote Repeater. I was flabbergasted. Now I'm using the amazing antenna coverage function within the MC app to find best locations of repeaters, which is a fun pastime on itself, especially in a hilly environment. It's a fun and educational exeperience if nothing else! It reminds me very much of packet radio back in the 90s, similar vibe.
The reasoning gets worse the further you peel back that onion. Basically dumpsters are too large for sidewalks. Logically, it would make sense to put them on the curb. But no, drivers would complain because having to give up any curbside parking whatsoever.
Japan is well known in their acceptance of foreigners. Their economy is sputtering, the population is aging, and no matter how many economists tell the politicians they need to invigorate their economy they would rather build shitty robots.
Not just Japan. Stats are pretty miserable across the developed world.
The main reason for demographic decline and low fertility is liberal consumerism. Liberal consumerism is the religion of the developed world, and like all religions, it is a worldview that shapes one's understanding of what life is about. Consumerism's implicit anthropology is hostile to fertility, because fertility is at odds with the consumerist imperative. It also shapes how people view relationships and society. Consumerism is totalizing and produces a culture that smothers everything in the logic of consumerism.
Immigration is just an extractive and parasitic bandage over a gangrenous limb. The solution is to destroy consumerism and replaced with something better and more human. This will happen sooner or later, as consumerist societies will be eradicated through selective pressure (they'll go extinct), but it is better to voluntarily wage a religious, cultural, and political war against consumerism to save these societies.
Japan continues to have an HDI comparable to similarly sized France [0] despite having almost double it's GDP and a median age comparable to both Germany and Italy, and a TFR comparable to other European states [1].
It is also able to field a navy and armed forces that is independently able to hold off against China. Meanwhile, look at Europe and how it's managed the Ukraine Crisis.
reply