I was under the impression the application was more akin to 'fiduciary duty provides an executive shield for morally reprehensible corporate choices' rather than 'it provides an ability to sue someone for not following it.'

Legal defense instead of offense. IANAL, correct me please.

I don’t think “morally reprehensible” is a legal standard (but i’m not a lawyer either).

But to the point of this thread, there is no legal requirement that makes it so a boards fiduciary duty is in conflict with broader moral decisions, nor one that requires them to forget about their humanity when applying their duties as corporate officers.

If they are assholes, its because they are assholes, not because they are required to do so by their obligations to the corporation.

> no I dont know how O(n) is calculated when reading a function

   1. Confidently state "O(n)"
   2. If they give you a look, say "O(1) with some tricks"
   3. If they still give you a look, say "Just joking! O(nlogn)"

O(no idea)

> but traditional media has all been captured and the algorithms have done the rest

We should be explicit about what happened:

Google and Facebook skimmed off most of advertising revenue that previously supported journalism.

Then neither originated new news in quantity or quality to replace what they ate. Revenues (from ads) without costs (of paying journalists) = their profits.

Now, we have orders of magnitude less professional journalism.

When you boil it down, their business models are less about being clever and more about redirecting a huge, previously-social-good flow of money through their toll gates and taxing it.

Sorry, have to call b.s. on lack of funds. Our media are owned by a very few, a handful, of corporations. And this happened before Google even existed. It happened in the 90s.

> business model

I don't know, is this willful ignorance? Press is political ...

A prior ill doesn't excuse a subsequent one.

That Sinclair, Nexstar, CC/iHeartMedia were allowed to consolidate in the 90s is bad.

That Google et al. decimated newspaper revenue from the mid-00s onwards without replacing their newsrooms is worse.*

I wouldn't have as big a gripe if Google or Facebook had started their own news bureaus and funded them with their profits. It still would have been a rounding error on their balance sheet.

But instead they destroyed a social good, took their bonuses, and called it a day.

* See 2007, the year Google was allowed to buy DoubleClick https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/fact-sheet/newspapers...

100% ^

The loop seems to go like this: remote working + increasingly isolated-by-default urban cultures => social depression => not having the energy to go out => more social depression

Spending too much time on the internet exacerbates this. It seems like a cure, but is really just empty social calories. And too much news is even worse.

Being in a relationship or having kids provides built-in, daily social stimulation. I can almost guarantee that's what you're missing, even if it doesn't feel like that and/or that doesn't sound appealing.

Your skills around doing that with strangers might have also atrophied (some strangers suck, so why deal with that when you have great people at home?).

But... it is a skill that can be rebuilt!

I'd recommend making a plan for social engagement, that feels right, and sticking to it. And there are tiny steps: taking a book to a local library and reading around other people (instead of alone), starting one conversation with a stranger (no matter how short or simple), walking through a park (with dog!), etc. Anywhere there are other people.

As someone who went through something similar to OP recently, the things that saved me: (1) getting a dog, (2) giving up a remote-only job for a hybrid one, and (3) diving back into dating.*

* Bumble. Yes, it sucked. Imho, best way to approach it: only match with people you'd be interested enough to go on a date with, chat just enough to figure out if you vibe (and learn red flags to watch for), then plan an in-person date, and be honest with them about feelings after the first date.

Splits and light days. Parent wasn't suggesting every day be full body max.

The value of Waymo isn't current revenue, it's whether it works reliably and whether it can be scaled.

Just wait until China gets to the next stage of capitalism.

They're investing their trade surplus in assets around the world, especially the third world.

When those assets start to go bad and/or the government nationalizes them?

We'll see if China responds any differently than any of the other colonial powers with business interests.

US voter math: remove penalties/taxes + increase benefits = everything is fine

Thus solving the problem.

The penalties were extremely unpopular and affected poor people the most.

I know the economic idea, but it is not a good mechanism for society.

The expanded Medicaid was supposed to take care of poor people, but several states refused to implement that.

Reality tends to be inconvenient.

It's amazing how every reply failed to realize you're (and post was) talking about (a) enterprise Slack usage & (b) AI use by the company itself.

I operate with the assumption that the company can access my private DMs on enterprise slack if they want to. With that, users are still allowed to be concerned if the company is going to use that information for AI use cases. I’d prefer that all AI stay away from my private DMs.

There is no privacy in corporate computer systems in the US, legally, as far as I'm aware.

Company pays for the bills = company data

The issue here is that Slack's attempting to build a moat by restricting access by a company to that company's data.

Thereby allowing Salesforce to sell additional features on that same data that only it has access to at scale.