Perhaps I'm being uncharitable but this line "each person will be more load-bearing" reads to me as "each person will be expected to do more work for the same pay".
To me, it's the opposite. I think the words used are not exactly well-thought-through, but what they seem to want to be saying is they want less bureaucratic overhead, smaller teams responsible for bigger projects and impact.
And wanting that is not automatically a bad thing. The fallacy of linearly scaling man-hour-output applies in both directions, otherwise it's illogical. We can't make fun of claims that 100 people can produce a product 10 times as fast as 10 people, but then turn around and automatically assume that layoffs lead to overburdened employees if the scope doesn't change, because now they'll have to do 10 times as much work.
Now they can, often in practice. But for that claim to hold more evidence is needed about the specifics of who is laid off and what projects have been culled, which we certainly don't seem to have here.
Layoffs are everywhere. Millions of employees have had to do more without any change in compensation. My own team has decreased from six to two, but I am not seeing any increased pay for being more load bearing.
I will always pour one out for the fellow wage slave (more for the people who suddenly lost a job), but I am admittedly a bit less sympathetic to those with in demand skills receiving top tier compensation. More for the teachers, nurses, DOGEd FDA employees, whatever who was only ever taking in a more modest wage, but is continually expected to do more with less.
Management cutting headcount and making the drones work harder is not a unique story to Facebook.
Still, regardless of the eye-watering amount of money, there's still a maximum amount of useful work you can get out of someone. Demand too much, and you actually lower their total productivity.
(For me, I found the limit was somewhere around 70 hrs/week - beyond that, the mistakes I made negated any progress I made. This also left me pretty burnt out after about a year, so the sustainable long-term hourly work rate is lower)
We're talking about overworked AI engineers and researchers who've been berated for management failures and told they need to do 5x more (before today). The money isn't just handed out for slacking, it's in exchange for an eye-watering amount of work, and now more is expected of them.
Where did you get that people are expected to do 5x more? That just seems made up.
And do not forget that people have autonomy. They can choose to go elsewhere if they no longer think they’re getting compensated fairly for what they are putting in (and competing for with others in the labor market)
Cellphones used to operate on a frequency band that was very close to the same band used by ground proximity warning systems, so theoretically they could interfere with the safety systems on a plane. Modern phones use different frequency bands now.
Honestly this feels like a better policy than most AI training - Meta actually has explicit rights to the content it is using. Sure it was EULA click-through but at least it's something that the content creator ostensibly agreed to.
Of course I'm sure Meta is also training their AI on content that they scraped from the internet/other sources without permission...
Branching in Subversion was fine, but merging was quite painful (at least at the time I was using it, around 2008ish). From my recollection, SVN didn't try to figure out the base commit for a merge - you had to do that manually. I remember having a document keeping track of when I branched so that I could merge in commits later.
And even if I was using it wrong or SVN improved merging later the fact was that common practice at the time was to just commit everything to the main branch, which is a worse (IMO) workflow than the feature-branch workflow common in git.
But you're right, SVN was largely fine and it was better than what preceded it and better than many of its peers.
Edit: Forgot to mention - one of the biggest benefits to git, at least early on, was the ability to use it locally with no server. Prior to git all my personal projects did not use version control because setting up VC was painful. Once git came around it was trivial to use version control for everything.
I still can't get over the fact that Trisolaris is actually a four body problem, not a three body problem. I've heard some explanations that this is because you can ignore the mass of the planet. While I'm not an astrophysicist, I'm not sure that's true given that the entire point is to figure out how three suns affect the planet.
I'd be surprised if that's "most workers". Some workers sure, especially those who already have some wealth like an already paid for house and can afford to be picky with their careers, but most workers who do not, are chasing wealth building and financial security first before being picky about the ethics and other aspects of their career.
Perhaps I worded it a bit poorly - I don't think most workers have a purely non-financial agenda. But most workers have multiple agendas for working, the financial agenda probably being the strongest.
But it's not a purely transactional agreement like you make it out to be.
It was my understanding that many of the studies on moderate alcohol consumption included people in the study who could not drink for medical reasons (or were former alcoholics) which skewed the results for the zero-alcohol groups.
Studies on red wine included people whose only source of fruit was red wine, which similarly skewed the results.
