> Until you actually need to run a business. Did you mean to say "Until you actually need to sell to a business."? They did do very well for a long time mostly by focusing on consumers...

Isn't this basically the same structure they currently use i.e. individual contributors, managers, and producers?

As someone who works in big tech with a partner at a similar big tech company _but with player coaches, DRIs, etc_ it is basically the same thing except messier.

Your manager who used to just focus on motivating and unblocking their people? Now they have to ship code too since they’re a player coaches! You’re a DRI who needs management to get your project unblocked? Too bad your player coach who has to ship code now also has 20 direct reports because the hierarchy was flattened so you can’t get time with them until next week and are blocked until at least then.

It is the hot new trend from the “thought leaders” who have all consistently copied each other’s bad ideas for the past 10 years.

Do we know how much choice OpenAI has with the arrangement? They call it a "request", but could they have been ordered directly?

its always seemed like a prank to me; and I'm impressed that he never broke during the performance to ask "are you people really falling for this???"

In the original performance, he had a page turner.

They're victims of success. Lautrec was so infamous some people (read: me) are too scared to play the game without a guide now. "What if I missed some NPC and I can't level up anymore?!"

That's what I had; I was going through Elden Ring thinking "I will just play the game straight / naive the first time, no guides". Got close to the city and thought "...this feels like a point of no return / the end, better check if I missed anything important!". 100 hours later (or whatever) and I found out it's more like the halfway point.

I just accept I'll miss things / get some sub-optimal outcomes for my first play, though I do try to explore a lot and sometimes player messages help rather than troll/spoil/be funny. Guides only come out for NG+ and beyond.

I don't see how having homeless people everywhere in LA and SF is related to whether they have a functional legislature. Is there some law that California could pass to solve homelessness and they're just too dysfunctional to do so?

If the legislature focused on passing thoughtful laws and not feel good nonsense designed to appease their base, we might get somewhere.

But specifically to homelessness, obviously no easy solutions since the problem has been allowed to go from bad to worse and more. But how about enforcing existing laws. The governor made a big deal about enforcing the law about clearing out the homeless from under the freeway bridges and some other public places, where it was getting out of hand. The media came, he had his publicity shot, the cops cleared out the homeless. Mission accomplished... and a week later, the homeless are back.

This is a specific example of feel good nonsense with zero follow through.

But the main problem is the endless funding for the homeless problem. In LA alone, the state has spent $6.5 billion in the last 10 years (number has been increasing over the years). This means, every year there is roughly $650 million to be doled out between businesses, local governments, activists, etc... Given that more homelessness results in more money to all these organizations, you would be hard pressed to ask them to actually solve the problem that feeds them. This problem is on the legislature.

> The media came, he had his publicity shot, the cops cleared out the homeless. Mission accomplished... and a week later, the homeless are back.

It's almost as if removing them didn't solve their homelessness. If you ignore the actual problem and only make a lazy effort to address the most visible symptom of the problem being ignored than it's not really surprising when the symptom returns.

Clearing the homeless from underpasses doesn’t make homelessness go away, it just removes it from your sight.

What laws do you think they should pass that would actually address the problem?

If you subsidize a problem, the problem will increase in size.

> But how about enforcing existing laws.

My sense (and I lived in the Bay Area for 27 years) is that it is because they have never worked.

Can you give an example of a set of laws that would solve homelessness?

Short term emergency solution: Take the massive amount money that's being used in a wildly inefficient manner on token permanent supportive housing projects and instead shelter 100% of people on the street. Treat it as an emergency on par with Covid and target 90 days to get everyone off the street. Enforce bans on street camping 100% after shelter is guaranteed statewide.

Long term:

Amend the state constitution to defang the California Environmental Quality Act and the Coastal Commission with regard to new housing development

- Amend the state constitution to punitively remove local zoning privileges for 10 years on the first offense, permanently on the second, for any region that fails to have its housing element plan approved.

CA has a notoriously dysfunctional legislature, doubly so due to the Democratic super majority in place that means any legislature the Democrat party wants would sail through without a hint of opposition.

Look at the no fee law that conveniently exempted all restaurants for example. It's abundantly clear the legislature doesn't have the average voter in mind when it comes to the work it does.

What is the banksy lie?

Banksy doesn't really exist and all his paintings are actually an elaborate marketing campaign we don't understand yet.

Do you know who Banksy is (representing)? That's the lie.

A lot of those words were explaining why they're excited to develop software for it.

What did you want them to write about instead?

More of the "write about" and less of the "write about why I'm writing about".