This is a tough one because I've been there. I have worked for orgs that don't align with my values, but when you're in there you aren't thinking that you are contributing to the absolutely horrible crap they're doing. You just keep telling yourself, "I just do this one little thing." And that's enough to convince yourself that it's ok. You're keeping your values and morals intact.

Saying that, I'm sure if more of them had options they'd jump in a heartbeat.

> You just keep telling yourself, "I just do this one little thing." And that's enough to convince yourself that it's ok.

This is how I would have imagined most of these people think (except for the true sociopaths who just don't care).

> Saying that, I'm sure if more of them had options they'd jump in a heartbeat.

Are you saying the people who have been working for Meta had no other options? That would be a ridiculous claim.

The point is that there have been many, many options and yet they chose to interview for Meta and take the offer.

> Are you saying the people who have been working for Meta had no other options? That would be a ridiculous claim.

The point is that there have been many, many options and yet they chose to interview for Meta and take the offer.

Bold assumption.

You can't tell me that someone took an offer from Meta because it was their only option. This is just absurd.

I guess it would depend on the role.

Unlike chess or Go, where both players see the entire board, poker involves hidden information, your opponents’ hole cards. This makes it an incomplete-information game, which is far more complex mathematically. The AI must reason not only about what could happen, but also what might be hidden.

Even in 2-player No-Limit Hold’em, the number of possible game states is astronomically large — on the order of 10³¹ decision points. Because players can bet any amount (not just fixed options), this branching factor explodes far beyond games like chess.

Good poker requires bluffing and balancing ranges and deliberately playing suboptimally in the short term to stay unpredictable. This means an AI must learn probabilistic, non-deterministic strategies, not fixed rules. Plus, no facial cues or tells.

Humans adapt mid-game. If an AI never adjusts, a strong player could exploit it. If it does adapt, it risks being counter-exploited. Balancing this adaptivity is very difficult in uncertain environments.

I agree with most of this except the overcommunicating part. If you're setting the right expectations, overcommunicating may be mistaken for micromanaging.

Managers are judged by outcomes, not by contribution. Good leaders know how to shield their team from the chaos above while shielding the managers above from the challenges of managing many different personalities. They are a conduit for collaboration and inspiration.

Bad leaders are chaos agents and are the main drivers of attrition and should be rooted out quickly. They are a poison pill.

This reminded me of an old app that would scan the MAC addresses of devices already connected to a paid WiFi network. You would then just change your MAC to one that already paid for the WiFi, and then reset it once you were done.

Wouldn't that lead to interference with the original device using that MAC address? Ie both of you getting packets meant for the other etc?

Yes. It’s a bad (maybe even illegal?) thing to do. The victim device will start losing packets, and it’ll look to them like the network is just unreliable. Eventually they give up and disconnect, and you take full control.

Yeah. I think any network with STP/anti-flapping enabled will shut that down pretty quickly though.

tried that in a hotel in Paris and it worked

This needs to be a model for other states to follow. Too often, incarcerated people are left with very few real options to have a viable career beyond some sort of physical trade like construction, hospitality, or food service. And while all of those career options are great, they do not often provide a real living wage.

Hopefully, we see more of this throughout the country!

While I agree with some of the statements made in the article, I don't think everything is doom and gloom. There is still a place for early-stage VC for founders looking to scale.

While I agree that AI is making it easier to launch things, there are so many other ancillary things that require human capital that AI still hasn't solved for, and I don't see that changing in the next 10-15 years. Call me a boomer, but there are a lot of companies that need to grow, and VC funding is a great solution for them.

I will say, however, seeing larger funds change to evergreen funds or even to a more PE model should make everyone pay attention. Adapt or die, right?

I'm feeling a little bit of buyer's remorse for that same reason. I love my Canon, but having a closed loop lens system is not ideal and is insanely pricey. All of the "adapters" that allow you to use 3rd party lenses suck.

This is great! I once set up a Twilio script that would call spam callers every five minutes and play "Macarena."

It'll be interesting to see how much the other social media platforms work to replicate the TikTok model if this ban ends up being permanent.

The moment I started reading, "Set up multiple domains" I felt like I needed to shower. Sleazy indeed.