No, I interact more on Reddit. That’s where the community conversation is. Ideally, it would be on Lemmy, but the difference between our ideal state and reality isn’t bridged by wishing it to be the same. There’d need to be practical drivers that push the two into meeting and those drivers don’t exist for Lemmy to reach kind of critical mass that would allow it to be a replacement for incumbent social media platforms.

Lemmy is for people who don’t want those social platforms, or an “also-ran” platform that exists in parallel with them. The federated model which gives it survivability and freedom is also the reason that it won’t have the broad appeal that would allow it to scale to incorporate input from all of society.

Many will rationalize that it’s good to keep the rest of society out of Lemmy too, and I’m not getting into whether or not that’s good, but either way it means that Lemmy will not have the broad adoption that makes the big social media platforms interesting to most people.

This is correct. Real estate prices don’t mean anything to the vast majority of companies since most of them are not in the real estate business and likely even lease their office spaces. It could have a minor impact to the balance sheet if deemed impaired but it doesn’t amount to something that matters in valuation which cares more about P&L, cash flow, and working capital.

Business leaders are human, they don’t know what the fuck is going on, or how to “increase shareholder value”. So for lack of better ideas they can just tell employees to go back to the office.

Basically, if you don’t know how to stop a ship from sinking, you can at least change the curtains on the windows so you look busy on the way down.

They first, make the decision to go back to the office, second, they tell their team to go find reasons to rationalize the decision. There isn’t a nuanced logic to arriving at the conclusion, they make these calls off-hand on gut feelings. The thinking comes in later from the direct reports trying to fill in the logical gaps, even if the decision wasn’t a logical one to begin with.

Supporting Ukraine IS anti-war.

It’s a war of aggression and the fastest and ONLY way to stop such a war is to stop the aggressor. Appeasement simply allows the aggressor to continue perpetuating or expanding their war aims.

The waste is trickling arms to them instead of surging it. We need decisive Ukrainian victory to spare the lives of Ukrainians and Russians from Putin’s war.

All of them intend to vote for Trump in November, regardless of legal court findings, if they have any chance to vote form him, through legal means or otherwise they will all do it.

Seems like a good thing. Helps lead towards a more sympathetic and symbiotic relationship and a stepping stone to peaceful relations between the two countries. Anything that gets them further from a hostile invasion is a step in the right direction.

It’s about ego. The boss doesn’t know how to make the company perform better, they’re all out of ideas. They have to change something to make it look like they’re doing something, so RTO is the low hanging fruit.

There’s really no more justification needed than that. Looking at practical benefits to explain RTO pushes won’t get you answers because the practical benefits are so slim and conditional relative to the strain it creates.

It’s all about ego. They self-identity as the hardcore alpha boss that deserves high pay because they “earn” it. So to massage that ego, they go into the office even though they dont need to, and are meeting with nobody there. It’s pointless but it feeds their ego.

So they feel alone at the office…and in that worldview they are hardworking (an assumed condition), and nobody else is there, therefore everyone else is not hardworking (regardless of how much work they’re actually doing).

In the current state people can take classes on say Zoom, formulate a question, and then type it into Google, which pulls up an LLM-generated search result from Baird.

Is there profit in generating an LLM application on a much narrower set of training data to sell it as a pay-service competitor to an ostensibly free alternative? It would need to pretty significantly more efficient or effective than the free alternative. I don’t question the usefulness of the technology since it’s already in-use, just the business case feasibility amidst the competitive environment.

Yeah, when the court and the law lacks objectivity or ethics, this sort of thing happens. That’s why a functional court and rule of law is needed to provide an orderly pressure release valve for accumulated injustices.