Recent comments in /f/technology

Longjumping_Worry184 t1_j9dfjhf wrote

It's a problem with paying your workers in RSUs. If you run the business to optimize stock price and the line always goes up then your workers always make more year over year without increasing their cash base. Of course the market doesn't always go up, so you have this situation where workers perform great, but stock went down so they effectively make less than last year because a significant portion of their total comp comes from stock vests.

Even worse for newer workers who are just now vesting shares they got 2 years ago when the stock was worth twice as much. They've put up with a lot of shit to make it to vesting and the stock and that payday is half as much as was calculated two years back

36

VelveteenAmbush t1_j9dep2g wrote

> Any other proposition will sound ridiculous to you, because all we have ever known is capitalism.

We've seen some other propositions. The problem is that they all end in immiseration and authoritarianism, and the logic of why they do makes sense, so the proponents of further experiments have their work cut out justifying why their path won't lead to the same place, and they should think about how to run small-scale experiments to prove their ideas before putting whole societies at risk.

−2

AMirrorForReddit t1_j9den30 wrote

That's because this is jsut the start of making this object worth millions. It may be only 60k now, but it is already being worked on to make it more. That's what this buzz cycle is all about. Giving the "piece" history, and that brings up the value, etc.

When I look at articles like this where X item was auctioned at X outrageous amount of money, I don't think, "Oh wow, that could have been me had I kept an Iphone." Instead I think, "Oh, there are some people who have connections and are playing some kind of game that I would never have been able to be a part of."

−1

AMirrorForReddit t1_j9deh5p wrote

How can it simply be a mirror test when a large part of it presents information the average individual does not have?

Just to be clear, I think I see where you are going with that statement, but I disagree that it is nuanced enough to make much sense.

Yeah, people are hopeless, it seems, at understanding what they are working with with ChatGPT.

0

IrrelevantPuppy t1_j9dbj4g wrote

That’s fair, it’s literally too late. We’ve become addicted to capitalism, you cant imagine anything being done without it, and that’s how most people work. Any other proposition will sound ridiculous to you, because all we have ever known is capitalism. There’s other options, we just can’t imagine how they could be realistic, because this is the world we know. It’s not possible to fix this without a cataclysm. We need aliens, an Ai overlord, or some kind of benevolent dictator superhuman to snap us out of this.

We will never be able to get past the “oh I see how it’s beneficial to all humanity, but how does it profit me in the short term?” barrier without something inconceivable happening to all of humanity. We’re gonna stagnate like this for the foreseeable future, if not forever. If the rich have any sway, they do, and it’s all of it, it will never change.

19

7wgh t1_j9d81xb wrote

Instagram has 1 billion monthly active users. Of which, 0.6% have more than 1 million followers (https://mention.com/en/reports/instagram/followers/)

That’s 6 million accounts right there, and they’re the ones who are more likely to pay for a verified badge + extra features.

For these big accounts, IG is a big part of their business/livelihood, and $12/mo is a rounding error to then. It’s simply a cost of business to these accounts. Just like paying for their domain/website.

Then remember this is just IG, I didn’t even add the users from FB.

So there’s likely tens of millions of people who are willing to pay for this subscription for a very long time.

They aren’t targeting every day users like me and you. It’s the same with Twitter. They’re targeting the power users with big audiences.

10