Greg's recent activity
-
Comment on "Visa" Gift Cards - What should I be looking at? in ~finance
-
Comment on What private companies are you happy doing business with? in ~talk
Greg Link ParentI can't really argue against that, because I keep buying the damn things, and the package as a whole is better than anything else I know of on the market - but I also can't in good conscience...People view macs as a poor value because they don’t serve the low cost market with new devices. But if you actually compare them correctly, they are quite reasonably priced.
I can't really argue against that, because I keep buying the damn things, and the package as a whole is better than anything else I know of on the market - but I also can't in good conscience think of them as reasonably priced when they deliberately underspec the base models for price anchoring, and then gouge to a ridiculous degree on the storage and RAM upgrades you need to make it a worthwhile purchase.
-
Comment on What private companies are you happy doing business with? in ~talk
Greg Link ParentWorth noting that the duty is to manage in the shareholders interests - that leaves a surprisingly large open door to debate what that actually means: short term profit, long term profit,...Worth noting that the duty is to manage in the shareholders interests - that leaves a surprisingly large open door to debate what that actually means: short term profit, long term profit, regulatory risks and fines, reinvestment, asset growth, etc. etc. And then within each of those categories there's even more scope to debate what a reasonable person would expect to achieve those goals: product quality, cost cutting, brand perception, and a million other things.
But yeah, like I said below, the real pressure that most public companies feel is "make share price go up". In practice the incentive structure tends to come out the way you're interpreting it, but I do think the legal nuance is still an interesting one - more than anything because it's a route to realigning those interests a bit if we could get sufficiently large shareholders (pension funds, for example, which are theoretically operating in the interests of millions of normal people) to start making clear that they're willing to sacrifice a certain amount of share price growth for externalities they value more, such as prioritising the environment where doing so is only marginally more expensive than not.
-
Comment on What private companies are you happy doing business with? in ~talk
Greg Link Parent@stu2b50 is quite right about why issuing shares (or taking on debt, for that matter) can be in the interests of the company - and often that's exactly why it's done. But the other important...@stu2b50 is quite right about why issuing shares (or taking on debt, for that matter) can be in the interests of the company - and often that's exactly why it's done. But the other important answer to "why" is that sometimes it's in the interests of the people making the decision, even if that goes against the interests of the company as a whole.
Maybe the money is being raised to invest in the company's long term success. Or maybe it's being raised to boost some short term numbers by spending unsustainably, thus hitting targets and justifying a very large round of executive bonuses. Either can be true, and how easy it is to get away with the latter depends on a whole lot of internal and external factors.
-
Comment on What private companies are you happy doing business with? in ~talk
Greg Link ParentYou could maybe argue that this is also just a function of extreme growth, but going public does tend to re-center compensation for the decision makers in terms of share price, which meaningfully...You could maybe argue that this is also just a function of extreme growth, but going public does tend to re-center compensation for the decision makers in terms of share price, which meaningfully changes the incentive structure compared to an equally large privately held company - there can be a lot more incentive to "metagame" the expected market perception of a move, and particularly to consider that on relatively short timescales, where a privately held company leader will often have more ability to wait for the actual business impacts of a decision to be shown before it's judged.
You're also a lot more likely to be dealing with significant investments from shareholders whose sole interest is increasing share price - a lot of them will be through large funds where the ownership of the company is heavily abstracted away from the investors. The pressures put on the company from that kind of investment can be quite different to those from a smaller number of more targeted shareholders investing in a privately held company, even at similar scale (not to say necessarily better, there are plenty of examples of private equity asset stripping out there, but a privately held company can at least attempt to be selective about taking money only from people whose interests align with those of the founders, in a way that one with significant publicly traded shares can't).
-
Comment on What’s a point that you think many people missed? in ~talk
Greg Link ParentYou're right, but I'd add that you don't want to take that thinking too far and start assuming it necessarily cheapens or worsens the outcome. It's like a lot of tools: you can use it to do a...You're right, but I'd add that you don't want to take that thinking too far and start assuming it necessarily cheapens or worsens the outcome.
It's like a lot of tools: you can use it to do a tedious job you'd otherwise have to do manually or just not bother with (even in a world of unlimited staffing budgets I don't think a lot of chefs would be lining up to stand around all shift watching thermometers on a bunch of pots and taking them on and off the heat to keep them steady for hours), you can use it to do something with better precision than you could realistically do manually (good luck targeting a reaction that needs to be held at 73C +/-0.5C for eight hours without a tool of some kind), you can use it to make a difficult manual job easier and more consistent (you can temper chocolate without one, but you'll never get a better result and you'll often get a worse one), or you can use it to make a job easier at the expense of a not-so-good result.
If it's expanding the repertoire, or cutting costs by simplifying things at equal or better quality, you actively want the restaurants to be using it for those things! The tricky bit comes when they start overusing it and the cost cutting comes at the expense of the final product.
-
Comment on US withdraws from sixty-six international organisations in ~society
Greg Link ParentAnd as with the Civil War, there's still a very tricky unsolved problem in that a plurality of "we the people" are in favour of the oppression.And as with the Civil War, there's still a very tricky unsolved problem in that a plurality of "we the people" are in favour of the oppression.
-
Comment on US discussing options to acquire Greenland, including use of military, says White House in ~society
Greg Link ParentSevere economic sanctions on the US, for a start. The closure of their overseas military bases, and ejection of troops stationed there. Formal dissolution of intelligence sharing agreements....Severe economic sanctions on the US, for a start. The closure of their overseas military bases, and ejection of troops stationed there. Formal dissolution of intelligence sharing agreements. Cancellation of contracts with US companies, and possibly even the seizure of assets or forced sale of their holdings outside the US.
Threatening with the nuclear deterrent only makes sense if you’re willing to use it, and we really, really fucking don’t want to use it. It’s called mutually assured destruction for a reason…
I’m absolutely dismayed at the weak responses from most of Europe so far - we’re well past “strongly worded letter” territory and we need some actual consequences with teeth. But direct conflict, and especially anything that could raise nuclear tensions, is an incredibly bad place to jump to unless absolutely all other options are exhausted. Sufficient economic pressure would be more than enough for this administration to fold, as they have done repeatedly when met with actual consequences they can’t weasel out of, but that’s going to need some commitment from the rest of the Western world - and right now a lot of leaders aren’t even willing to make their strongly worded letters that strongly worded.
-
Comment on What are some stories of progressivism gone wrong in implementation? in ~society
Greg Link ParentI really appreciate this, and I do actually very much get where you're coming from with that context. I won't claim to really feel it for this thread in particular, it does still read fairly...I really appreciate this, and I do actually very much get where you're coming from with that context. I won't claim to really feel it for this thread in particular, it does still read fairly matter of fact to me, but I've certainly felt similarly in other conversations on occasion - perhaps even ones where you might not have thought the same.
We've got literal nazi billionaires hyping up the worst people in society with permission and encouragement to be as shitty as humanly possible to anyone with a shred of decency. Angry and exhausted seems like pretty much the only sane default in response to... the world anymore, and that alone seems like justification enough for feeling despondent as far as I'm concerned.
On the off chance that a different lens might make this thread specifically look a little less depressing: the feeling I get is that perhaps it's active because in general and on the wider internet it's almost impossible to engage thoughtfully on a subject like this without the conversation turning into a cesspit of overt fascism. A mostly civil, mostly thoughtful thread on the topic is maybe a bit of a beacon for people to get irritations off their chest that they'd otherwise hold back because yeah, absolutely fuck joining any conversation where the participants are actually trying to undermine the premise of equality and inclusion rather than just venting about the implementation.
Or maybe I'm being too clinical, too detached, and giving people a pass where I shouldn't be. I'm burned out too, I meant it when I said I don't 100% trust my own judgment on this one, and the last thing I'd want to do is suggest you're not justified in how you feel. Something @chocobean said a day or two ago stuck with me, and it feels like it applies here too, where we're all too worn down by the overt horrors to really deal with anything else: this is yet another way the ultra wealthy has extracted from wider society: they've extracted kindness and decency.
-
Comment on Hacktivist deletes three white supremacist websites live onstage during hacker conference in ~tech
Greg Link ParentWhat's the solution there when the justice system/executive are the white supremacists, and show no respect for the rule of law?What's the solution there when the justice system/executive are the white supremacists, and show no respect for the rule of law?
-
Comment on Mystery trader garners $400,000-plus windfall on Nicolas Maduro's capture in ~society
Greg Link ParentIn theory, if an insider knows that a given outcome is going to happen, they're incentivised to put a large amount of money on that thing happening because they'll make a guaranteed return - and...In theory, if an insider knows that a given outcome is going to happen, they're incentivised to put a large amount of money on that thing happening because they'll make a guaranteed return - and that in turn skews the derived probability heavily in favour of their position, communicating to everyone else that the outcome is likely. Polymarket's reputation is based on accurate prediction, so this is in their favour, at least if we put aside the potential negative externalities of leaking secret information that other people have mentioned.
The difficulty is that this assumes everyone's playing on a more or less even financial footing, otherwise big players can choose to skew the derived predictions by sheer volume (potentially for purposes more lucrative to them than winning the Polymarket bet), and it assumes that the insider knows about a predetermined outcome without being sufficiently incentivised to alter that outcome (perhaps in a way that's detrimental to everyone else, including those who made what would otherwise have been the "correct" prediction) in order to make their Polymarket bet pay out.
-
Comment on What are some stories of progressivism gone wrong in implementation? in ~society
Greg Link ParentOoof, yeah, this one hits. The fact that it feels so much better to stop doing the thing even though you know doing it was beneficial and you actually want to get it done, and feels so much worse...It almost feels like holding your breath underwater. [...] When I finally stop doing the thing, I get a wave of relief and then daydream or stare out the window for fifteen minute.
Ooof, yeah, this one hits. The fact that it feels so much better to stop doing the thing even though you know doing it was beneficial and you actually want to get it done, and feels so much worse trying to drag yourself through it even though... objectively it's fine? And there's no actual reason for it to feel that bad? But for whatever reason it just does.
-
Comment on What are some stories of progressivism gone wrong in implementation? in ~society
Greg Link ParentI'll say first and foremost that perhaps I'm reading the comments here too much at face value - it's something I've been known to misjudge in the past, and perhaps there's genuine subtext intended...I'll say first and foremost that perhaps I'm reading the comments here too much at face value - it's something I've been known to misjudge in the past, and perhaps there's genuine subtext intended that I'm missing. But from what I've seen here, by and large, I get the impression that people are engaging in good faith, even if the topic by its nature causes some uncomfortable echoes of so much of the internet where there is more to worry about below the surface.
With that said - fully admitting I could be wrong, but assuming on my best effort that people are largely raising genuine concerns - this reply makes me kind of sad. It feels like a bit of a closed door, an assessment that the people engaging are the bad people, and that you're giving a nod to those fellow good people who are also disgusted by the content.
I feel like I've learned some interesting things in this thread: about the corrupt implementation of equality policies in South Africa leading to people unjustly blaming those policies for much wider corruption; about genuinely well meaning language changes being even more off putting or exclusionary to the people they were intended to accommodate; about people causing harm by fundamentally missing the purpose of the policies and just running with their absurd imagined version when implementing them. I've also just seen a comment below about male role models that looks to be extremely thoughtful, and that I'm going to read in detail after I finish writing this.
And for what it's worth, I've seen firsthand a lot of modern Michael Scott types just parroting progressive words and actions in increasingly absurd ways without stopping to think why - that's never garnered more than an exasperated eye roll from me, but it does make the causes look superficial and foolish. I'd far rather that than the opposite, which seems to be a regressive slide into those same people parroting actively exclusionary talking points instead, but I'd like to think we can look at the situation with enough nuance to understand that both are a problem, even though the latter is much worse.
More insidiously, I've sometimes seen genuine bullies hiding behind the language of oppression to secure a sense of moral high ground over their victims. Some people will callously, deliberately exploit any avenue open to them to gain an advantage over others, and if we aren't careful we can end up in a paradoxical situation where we put in place systems and norms that are simultaneously easy for a bad actor to exploit in bad faith, but excessively difficult to make use of honestly.
I guess what I'm saying is that the core concept of this topic seems an important one to discuss, and even if there's some clumsiness in how it's being handled, even if the jumping off point perhaps wasn't the best, I think it's a shame to suggest that the people engaging deserve to be branded as the kind of thoughtless techbros who perpetuate oppressive structures.
-
Comment on What are some stories of progressivism gone wrong in implementation? in ~society
Greg Link ParentI've had a couple of people on a couple of different occasions say that to me. I don't think there was any particularly negative intent behind it, and I certainly didn't take offence, but I guess...Hey do you have autism? Are you on the spectrum?
I've had a couple of people on a couple of different occasions say that to me. I don't think there was any particularly negative intent behind it, and I certainly didn't take offence, but I guess perhaps that very matter of fact interpretation of the question has something to do with why they asked in the first place...
-
Comment on What are some stories of progressivism gone wrong in implementation? in ~society
Greg Link ParentInterestingly, I read it as the exact opposite: looking at the fuck ups by people in positions of relative power who are going through the motions and missing the actual point of progressive...Interestingly, I read it as the exact opposite: looking at the fuck ups by people in positions of relative power who are going through the motions and missing the actual point of progressive policies, rather than anything aimed at the people those policies are supposed to be helping. I actually see quite a lot of value in understanding how these things go wrong, because that's a crucial step towards avoiding the same mistakes.
And yeah, I didn't love the original title either, but that's primarily because of the potential for misunderstanding. I think it's actually pretty positive that we're in a space that's safe enough to assume the correct intent on the wording, and discuss the practical failings of otherwise-positive policies without descending into mudslinging about the policies themselves.
-
Comment on What are some stories of progressivism gone wrong in implementation? in ~society
Greg Link ParentI think you're right, and I think this thread is a really interesting and important topic because of that: when good ideas hit the real world we're going to end up with a whole lot of unintended...I think you're right, and I think this thread is a really interesting and important topic because of that: when good ideas hit the real world we're going to end up with a whole lot of unintended consequences, well meaning but incompetent implementations, and outright malicious attacks designed to discredit the underlying ideology.
It's often hard to discuss that because people are (entirely reasonably) on high alert for that malice and misinformation, and I think there's often a bit of well meaning reluctance to talking about negative outcomes for fear of giving ammunition that can be twisted into those false narratives, or for fear of being wrongly seen as one of those people spreading misinformation under the guise of "legitimate concern" yourself.
But if we've got spaces where people are engaging with enough good faith to put those concerns aside, it's actually very valuable to see where things are coming undone in that gap between ideals and reality, so that we can fix those implementation problems before they end up undermining the ideals themselves.
As a somewhat related aside, I do agree with @sparksbet that maybe a title change could help with that signalling.
-
Comment on Reddit overtakes TikTok in UK thanks to search algorithms and gen Z in ~tech
Greg Link ParentYeah, reddit seems to be navigating the changing business and media landscape well - honestly quite a lot better than I expected. It's just a shame that the incentives of "be a successful...Yeah, reddit seems to be navigating the changing business and media landscape well - honestly quite a lot better than I expected. It's just a shame that the incentives of "be a successful business" seem to be aligned against "do what's positive for society", and indifferently to "make a better product for the users".
-
Comment on 2025 moviegoer attendance hits 780M, -5% from ’24; majority went to cinemas during pics’ first thirty days of release in ~movies
Greg Link ParentThere's an amazing independent cinema in the middle of London that somehow still manages to do that - I have no idea how they haven't been squeezed out, they're down an alleyway in one of the...There's an amazing independent cinema in the middle of London that somehow still manages to do that - I have no idea how they haven't been squeezed out, they're down an alleyway in one of the blandest, most over-touristed, hypercommercialised parts of the whole city, but somehow they're holding on and it's excellent!
-
Comment on 2025 moviegoer attendance hits 780M, -5% from ’24; majority went to cinemas during pics’ first thirty days of release in ~movies
Greg Link ParentNot sure if I'm misinterpreting you about the majority being outside that window, but it seems like 17 days will still capture almost all of the current audience? Looking at those numbers, I'd...Not sure if I'm misinterpreting you about the majority being outside that window, but it seems like 17 days will still capture almost all of the current audience? Looking at those numbers, I'd guess Netflix are aiming for WB releases to get 80-85% of the cinema viewing that we're seeing now.
It's still a drop, and I do think you're right that cinema viewing is likely to keep declining - I'd guess you know more than I do on the subject anyway! - but the percentages they give suggest that it's skewed heavily enough towards the release week that shorter timelines won't have a massive impact on that.
-
Comment on The first really new compass since 1936 (a new, public domain design without liquid in the dial) in ~engineering
Greg Link ParentI'm a little rusty on this, but as far as I know the difference between first-to-invent and first-to-file only affects the date that takes precedence in case of a dispute, rather than the rules...I'm a little rusty on this, but as far as I know the difference between first-to-invent and first-to-file only affects the date that takes precedence in case of a dispute, rather than the rules about what is or isn't patentable. It's not that you have to file, it's just that if anyone does file then the filing date is what matters when comparing to other patents or to prior art, even if they have proof that the invention date was meaningfully earlier than that.
Published prior art like this still blocks any future patents, and it's arguably actually safer to rely on in a first-to-file system because the only thing that needs to be proven is that the publication date of the prior art is earlier than the filing date of the patent (i.e. you can't end up in a dispute around the specific invention date with both parties pointing at invoices from their material suppliers and manufacturing partners to support exactly how many days prior to filing/publication the invention was actually invented). But yeah, the name is definitely misleading - it makes it sound like filing first is a guaranteed win rather than a win only if the idea was patentable at the time of filing.
That's useful - accurate info is always a good thing - but I'd still be deeply skeptical of any company that would even consider storing users' banking credentials. Same way I wouldn't want to eat from a place with a zero food hygiene rating even if I watched them use safe ingredients to make my sandwich in particular, you know?
My one almost-interaction with Plaid actually was an API integration, too, but they still wanted access to all of my past and future transactions in order to process a single one-off payment, which was more than enough to put them on my "absolutely not" list even before I knew about the credential storage.