I was reading the Careless People book about Meta.
One thing that stood out to me was the presentation of the tech early birds or the folk who dodged the dotcom bubble bursting - she specifically used the term “economically insensitive”. People who made their money from big tech’s initial offerings and their own shares going through the roof, being set up for life, and basically working for the love of the game.
It’s wild. If I’d gotten to the point where I’d paid off the mortgage and had enough in the buffer to catch any unexpected bills or travel costs or whatever, then yeah maybe I’d go geese farming or otter rehoming or llama cuddling or something.
Great book. I wish it was being made into a movie, instead of whatever the fuck the 2nd Social Network movie will be about. Jessie Eisenberg was ready to play Mark again with Emma Stone as Sheryl Sandberg, but it never took off.
I didn’t even know there was a followup movie in the works. I can understand why a sequel could be good given all that’s happened since, but I can’t understand doing so without most of the important people behind the first one. Sorkin’s a good writer, but I don’t think he was 100% responsible for what made the first one a good movie.
“Now watch as we enshittify our platform while buying out all the competition, manipulate national electoral outcomes with algorithmic profiling, and cover up our own internal studies on harmfulness in order to continue exploiting minors for profit!”
Yeah, but what’s odd is that now there’s basically a court document that reveals that’s exactly what Meta was doing, they knew it’s what they were doing, and they decided to continue doing it anyway because it was their intention to do so all along.
And yet they got slapped on the wrist and given a nominal fine…
I was reading the Careless People book about Meta.
One thing that stood out to me was the presentation of the tech early birds or the folk who dodged the dotcom bubble bursting - she specifically used the term “economically insensitive”. People who made their money from big tech’s initial offerings and their own shares going through the roof, being set up for life, and basically working for the love of the game.
It’s wild. If I’d gotten to the point where I’d paid off the mortgage and had enough in the buffer to catch any unexpected bills or travel costs or whatever, then yeah maybe I’d go geese farming or otter rehoming or llama cuddling or something.
Great book. I wish it was being made into a movie, instead of whatever the fuck the 2nd Social Network movie will be about. Jessie Eisenberg was ready to play Mark again with Emma Stone as Sheryl Sandberg, but it never took off.
I didn’t even know there was a followup movie in the works. I can understand why a sequel could be good given all that’s happened since, but I can’t understand doing so without most of the important people behind the first one. Sorkin’s a good writer, but I don’t think he was 100% responsible for what made the first one a good movie.
“Now watch as we enshittify our platform while buying out all the competition, manipulate national electoral outcomes with algorithmic profiling, and cover up our own internal studies on harmfulness in order to continue exploiting minors for profit!”
As has been tradition for as long as there’s been an America, and longer
Yeah, but what’s odd is that now there’s basically a court document that reveals that’s exactly what Meta was doing, they knew it’s what they were doing, and they decided to continue doing it anyway because it was their intention to do so all along.
And yet they got slapped on the wrist and given a nominal fine…
I mean, we do have president Epstein now so…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocletian