I'd apologize to Carmack for limiting his ability to influence the direction of Quest and try to lure him to the board and away from AGI. Not that I think Carmack would go for that, but if Meta wants VR to thrive then I think elevating John to a position to orchestrate everything is the way to go.
You want to elaborate on what you feel boards do then? I feel they help set strategy and oversee management, but hopefully in a hands-off way where they let the CEO do their thing unless numbers aren't being met. It's a little awkward since Meta's structure prevents Zuck from being removed so the board isn't able to vote him out. So if they're merely acting as strategic advisors, and if Zuck is still gung-ho on metaverse, then yes absolutely I want John on the board.
Michelle Obama. Checks off all the DEI boxes. Checks off the Political boxes. Checks off the intelligence boxes. One box remains: a sinister minister? can I trust her.
I read her book and it had stupid sexist advice, for one thing. It was like, "if you want a raise, blame your husband! tell them 'My husband needs me to make more money' and other out of touch suggestions like "get a nanny so you can take off and go to conferences" and if you're overwhelmed at home to hire a housekeeper. Just overall was poorly written, full of name dropping to her celeb gal pals (did you know she is friends with Oprah, Ariana Huffington, Maria Shriver, Kelly Ripa and Hilary Clinton??!) and self-promotional.
I’ve worked with her directly and she’s a hell of a lot smarter than most executives I’ve ever had to deal with. You may not like her book, but there’s a lot of good reasons she has the complex and impressive legacy on tech that she has.
She is one of the people most directly responsible for building Facebook into a massive surveillance / influence / control monstrosity and monetizing their abuses of their user base; and your problem with her is that she is an unabashed feminist?!
Perhaps it's that she's cynically wrapped herself in these values publicly in order to climb the ladder but then immediately turns around and acts in a way that's entirely incongruous with these stated values. The somewhat bothersome part is other people unknowingly take her seriously and promulgate seemingly popular false virtues to the determent of everyone.
obviously wrong, however the media seems to have given her a carte blanche because she brandished that feminist agenda. Never remember reading a bad review of her in major media. It's really remarkable
I worked at Facebook for five years, and I think most would say that Facebook would not be nearly as successful without her. She’s an incredibly skilled operator, and her departure is a big loss for Meta.
> Then that means it’s a big gain for the population of the world and she could not have left soon enough.
How do you come to that conclusion? It's not like just because she's gone means that Meta will stop doing anything that she implemented. She could leave and Meta changes nothing about what they do, and there would be 0 gain for the "population of the world" that you seem think will happen.
> I hope mark finds himself rudderless and meanders the company into a whirlpool,
As if. The Zuck will find someone else to lead, and our luck it will be someone with even less self control or care about the users than the person leaving. Sometimes, the devil you know is much more preferable to the devil that could come after.
We can see how well either of our comments age though
I get not liking the Lean In stuff, but I fail to see how it objectively hurt Meta. Seemed to be great for its "brand." What are you referring to with this drive by comment?
The reporting about casualties from Gaza come from the Hamas. Are you seriously expecting them to let's say report that, donno, 25% of what they report as "children killed" are combatants? That is not a reasonable expectation. I think the reality is we don't know.
We have a war in a densely populated area. Many civilians are killed as a result of waging a war in these situations (and given the refusal of civilians to leave when given warnings). A large portion of the population is likely under 18 because families have a lot of children.
There is also a war being waged in the media and in social media where Israel seems to be losing. The actual facts of the matter and history for many of those commenting are not of great interest and the same points of argument are just repeated from whatever side you're arguing for. What do they say, truth is the first victim of war, or something like that.
Re: the CNN article the source is the UN which is biased against Israel and they've been saying starvation basically since a week into the war (e.g. https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-news-12-21-2023-... ). The UN isn't just biased but they're also not free to operate inside Gaza so they're really unable to report accurately even if they weren't biased. Who is "The UN"? It's China, it's Syria, it's North Korea, it's Iran, it's Russia, it's Saudi Arabia, etc.
I have not seen photos from Gaza that look like those in this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvation The children in the CNN article don't look "starved". I don't doubt there is hunger and suffering but what we're seeing is mostly the weaponizing of their suffering against Israel to serve an agenda. Getting Israel to stop "its" war and allow Hamas to emerge as the winner of the conflict.
Just to be clear, the civilian population of Gaza should get access to food, as much as possible while a war is raging. However the motivation for many of the reports is primarily to attack and de-legitimize Israels' war. The casualty situation is similar, it is expected that in this kind of war there would be very high civilian casualties. The point of the critics is simply that Israel has no right to wage war to protect its citizens, i.e. it is not allowed to use violent means as a response to an attack on its citizens or to secure their lives. The criticism has been consistent since day 1 of this war when Palestinian casualties were significantly lower. When Israel warned Palestinians to move away from areas it was going to attack the UN declared that's impossible and even actively encouraged population to stay in targeted areas.
The elected government of Gaza, Hamas, has the most control over the condition of the Palestinians, and also bear the responsibility for the suffering of that population, from their decision to attack Israel to how they continue to wage the war till today. Egypt and the UN also bear some responsibility.
> The children in the CNN article don't look "starved".
So, we are going to bash everyone who won't "believe all women" but also concoct wild theories on how children in the Strip are all good because from a photo op our Einstein-level brain could look past the false famine narratives of the entire world (literally all 7 billion of them and institutions that represent them) and see them for what they are: motivated anti-semites?
> Hamas, has the most control over the condition of the Palestinian
Let's just pretend the Paris Protocol, the military blockade, the predatory exports regime, the restrictions on people and goods... don't exist.
This utter disregard for human life on the other side of the Iron Wall is so overt, it makes me sick. I wish for folks to break out of whatever nasty bubble they're in.
I honestly lost you. I didn't say children in the Gaza Strip are all good. Why would anyone think that.
You said antisemites. I am saying this starts with an agenda and/or ignorance. Call it whatever you want. If you have that agenda there's nothing that Israel does you're going to find acceptable. These debates tend to be futile. I'm not sure where you're coming from but most people with opinions are simply not capable of grasping this conflict or seeing past narratives.
We'll instead pretend the Hamas doesn't want the destruction of Israel and the murder of all Jews. We'll pretend it wasn't elected and it doesn't enjoy the broad support it does. We'll pretend they've never engaged in the brutal violence against civilians that they have since their inception including suicide bombings and other indiscriminate barbaric attacks. We'll pretend the Palestinian street did not consistently celebrate those attacks. We'll pretend Israel didn't withdraw from Gaza or attempt to settle the conflict. We'll pretend the Palestinians don't indoctrinate their children with hate and antisemitism. We'll pretend that most of them do not support violence as the prime method of resolving their grievances. We'll pretend Gaza hasn't been bombarding Israel on an ongoing basis since Israel's withdrawal. We'll pretend they didn't attack Israel on Oct 7th. We'll pretend Hamas didn't steal from the Gazan population to arm itself, build tunnels, wage war. We'll pretend Palestinian violence is about the occupation of 1967 despite that violence preceding 1967. We'll pretend Palestinians are willing to accept a two state solution. We'll pretend Palestinians have interest in peace despite their bombing campaign against Israeli civilians aimed at stopping the peace process. We'll pretend the world is a great place and Russia and China are champions of human rights and beacons of freedom.
We'll pretend. The situation in Gaza is 100% on the Hamas and the Palestinians.
Your so called "Iron Wall" was built as a response to terrorist attacks. There didn't use to be a wall (either around Gaza or the West Bank).
I mean if you actually have solutions then I'm all ears.
EDIT: And I think many of Israel's supporters and Israelis do care about human life on the other side of the "wall". In fact some of the Israelis that were killed and/or kidnapped in Oct 7th were involved in efforts to try and improve the quality of life for Palestinians. There were other efforts before Oct 7th to do that including more goods and more freedom of movement. But Israel's responsibility is primarily to its citizens and their safety. No different than other countries. The idea that "morality" in war somehow means that you're supposed to take more casualties and suffer more than the opposing entity that wishes to kill you just does not compute. It's coming generally from people who are lucky enough to live a life that's shielding them from these sorts of situations. Now the precise amount of force utilized and certain situations can be certainly be debated.
EDIT2: I also totally didn't follow your "7 billion" "false famine" argument. The Guardian e.g. suggests there are "pockets of famine": https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/16/no-food-no-wat... and then we have: “Gaza is on the Brink of Famine:” WFP’s Cindy McCain, January 12th. It's not like even the media, including the Guardian that is anti-Israeli, agrees to what you insist 7 billion people all know. Are people hungry. Certainly. Likely even extremely hungry. Should we try and get more aid to them. Certainly. Who is to blame? The Hamas mainly. Should Israel re-take the Gaza strip and destroy the Hamas? I think that's what Israelis expect. Once Israel completely retakes the entirety of Gaza feeding the Palestinians is going to be their responsibility. Right now most of the population is in Hamas controlled territories and as long as the Hamas keeps fighting, they should include a plan of taking care of their citizens in their war effort.
EDIT 3: or if you meant that somehow the UN represents the "will of the people" on this planet that also does not hold water. Many members of the UN are not democratic and so the voice of their citizens is suppressed. The UN does not have a proportional representation so not every world citizen has the same influence. Even for democratic countries the UN representative may not accurately reflect the majority opinion. The UN is really a forum for countries to talk to each other, it's not some source of absolute truth, and its organizations are certainly not without fault or bias.
