all 97 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 191 points 1 week ago (11 children)

hey google why do i love my children

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 72 points 1 week ago (9 children)

    "This is an interesting question, why do you love your children?"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 90 points 1 week ago (8 children)
  • [–] 40 points 1 week ago (7 children)
  • [–] 17 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    You made me imagine a Gorn AI. It doesn’t answer your questions it just keeps trying to fight you to the death.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    "Gorn, what's the weather today?"

    "Expect lots of rain from your family's tears as your blood floods the streets. There will be a high of 82 and a low of 58. Tonight, you can expect lots of clouds of smoke as I burn your carcass to watch the flames glisten upon my blades!"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 106 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    Instead of typing a prompt and getting a response, Dazzle has users snap a photo as the starting point and lets the agent point to what it thinks the next course of action should be. “Snap a picture of a purchase you’ve been thinking about, a flat tire, or fridge ingredients, and Dazzle buys on approval, schedules repairs, or suggests recipes,” the company says.

    Finally, what we really needed: ChatGPT for people too lazy to type a prompt

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • Snaps a picture of their daughter, what's it supposed do without input at that point? Just start making up critiques? "Well she doesn't have a flat tire but her hair cut is terrible, her features don't match societies preferences so she could use a nose job, the fact that she's not smiling tells me she could use a doctor's visit to diagnose depression medications"

    "On second thought there aren't 3 good things about your daughter"

    See! That's what I've been trying to tell her!!!

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago*

    About the stupidest Ai idea I've heard yet. Whose photo album is comprehensive and representative of their lives? Social media types take curated photos to send a specific message. The rest of us clutter it up with cat photos, images of items we don't want to forget, memes, and photos from others thrust upon us by applications like Viber.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 82 points 1 week ago (16 children)

    I don't understand why people are still taking this woman seriously. She is not a 'girlboss'. She is the woman who ran Yahoo into the ground, taking it from one of the giants of the dot com era into a largely worthless and useless has-been by grossly mismanaging every single one of their formerly valuable properties.

    The fact that she is involved immediately makes this company lose credibility in my eyes.

    The fact that she apparently needs an AI model to come up with three compliments for her own daughter only reinforces my opinion.

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    She probably "extracted value" for shareholders of a dying company. This usually means picking the company apart, selling things, firing people, and offshoring labor.

    IMO, every time a CEO, bigshot capitalist, or industrialist is cited as a "hero", I try to keep in mind they are not our hero.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Yahoo owned so many interesting services at some point or another over the years it's absolutely insane.

    Some Yahoo-branded services that spring to mind (really just off the top of my head) are things like the Yahoo Directory (larger than DMOZ at some point), Search (more popular than Google at some point), GeoCities, Maps, Mail, Messenger, Groups, Games (online boardgames) and Answers.

    And then there's all the stuff that wasn't Yahoo-branded, which includes some absolute bangers like del.icio.us, Flickr, Tumblr, AIM, MapQuest, RYOT, or fucking AOL and Netscape(!)

    It boggles my damn mind that anybody could own and squander that much stuff. Properly managed they should have been an internet service giant today.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 18 points 1 week ago

    I largely agree with you, though by the time she took the reigns at yahoo, it was already pretty dead.

    But this pattern of executives proudly offloading 'pesky personal connection' to AI just works to confirm that their stratum of society are almost exclusively sociopaths.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    She is the woman who ran Yahoo into the ground

    Was Yahoo doing that well in 2012? At the time people were saying that she would never have gotten the job if Yahoo wasn't a sinking ship

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    Look at Google as an example. Google started as a search engine and ad company, and has since reinvented itself with investment in new areas like photos, email, Android, etc.

    Yahoo started as a search engine, ad company, 'portal start page', and email. They kept doing the same old thing and went nowhere.

    But they still had products with value- Flickr for example. Managing photos was starting to become a big thing, but they let Flickr stagnate, it got no development, and eventually people stopped using it. Look at their email product as another- Gmail focused on making their email usable, clean, fast, great storage, and without lock-in. Yahoo email sucked and it was hard to get rid of them because for a long time they didn't support IMAP (what you'd use to vacuum out your old messages) or email forwarding. People stayed not because it was a great product, but because they were stuck. But that's a real missed opportunity- Yahoo Mail could have been what Gmail became.

    When Google modernized their site with web 2.0 technologies like AJAX and updated the look and feel to match, Yahoo still felt like a Web 1.0 site with ads all over the place and messy design.

    That's why I say she ran the company into the ground. Just because Yahoo wasn't leading the pack when she joined doesn't mean there weren't any wins to be had. It's the job of CEO to recognize where the company should invest and innovate and where they should stay the course.

    Another example- one of her big decisions was ending all remote work for Yahoo employees, without consideration for employees that didn't live near a Yahoo office, or even how much office space Yahoo had. I remember reports of people working in hallways and sitting on the floor because there weren't enough desks for everybody that was forced to come in.

    To be clear- I'm NOT saying she's stupid. She's obviously very smart. But I am saying she wasn't a good leader, and made many decisions that were obviously wrong both at the time and as seen historically. She does not seem to be a person with good business sense or the right kind of leadership, for a great many reasons.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago

    She was one among a string of bad CEOs for Yahoo. I worked there for a couple of years under another of them. In each case, people thought that this was the one who'd turn the company around. When I joined, I was pretty excited because they owned things like Flickr (still my favorite photo sharing site, long since detached from yahoo), del.icio.us (my favorite bookmark sharing site), and a bunch of neat stuff at Yahoo Developer Network (YQL and Pipes come to mind). Those all seemed pretty significant, but the company never really figured out how to turn those things into business success.

    The interesting thing here, though, is that IMO Yahoo has been successful in its own way over the past few years, probably since Verizon sold it. It just doesn't exhibit the "infinite growth forever" characteristics that make it appealing to investors. Its sports and finance sites remain very popular. It seems to have reached a point of stability as a business. But the current private equity owned company bears little resemblance to the original Yahoo and I certainly wouldn't consider it a "tech company" in any meaningful way.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago

    Google started as a search engine and ad company, and has since reinvented itself with investment in new areas like photos, email, Android, etc.

    There's really no point in comparing Google to Yahoo. Google actually developed a solid strategy fairly early on, which involved (1) collecting data from any source possible (all their services are designed around collecting data), (2) selling that data to advertisers, and (3) (very important) creating and owning platforms (Android, Chrome, Youtube, Pixel, GCP etc.) that allow them to not depend on anybody else.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    She is the woman who ran Yahoo into the ground, taking it from one of the giants of the dot com era into a largely worthless and useless has-been

    Yahoo was once a big recognizable brand, but there was pretty much no moment in history when anyone would have said "Oh no, Yahoo is down, now how will I get important things done?" It was never focused, it was never indispensable.

    Yahoo was valued at over $100B briefly in 1999-2000, after Google had demonstrated a much, much better internet search. Yahoo cratered to as little as 5% of its all-time high, recovered for a while, then began fading away. Its market cap was just under $20B when Mayer was hired in 2012. After which the market cap trended up.

    https://companiesmarketcap.com/yahoo/marketcap/

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    And that's why I say she ran it into the ground- because when Google demonstrated a MUCH MUCH MUCH better Search, Yahoo didn't do anything differently. They kept going as a 'start page portal site', kept pushing their really shitty email system, and just rode that wave into irrelevance.
    Yahoo HAD some properties that COULD have been immensely valuable, even post-Google, if done right.

    Flickr is one that comes to mind. Google had Picasa, and Google was innovating and pushing updates while Flickr (app and website) stagnated. So with no innovation everybody eventually left Flickr. With some vision, Flickr could have become what Tumblr or Google Photos ended up being.

    Yahoo Answers was another one. It was a forum sort of like AskReddit where you could post questions on any subject you wanted and others would answer it. Again, stagnated, became irrelevant.

    I'll give you that Mayer came in after much of the value had been lost. But she came into a diamond in the rough, a site that was ready to reinvent itself into something relevant again, and she just didn't.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

    And that’s why I say [Mayer] ran it into the ground- because when Google demonstrated a MUCH MUCH MUCH better Search, Yahoo didn’t do anything differently.

    Look, this sentence literally blames Mayer for things that happened before her tenure. You acknowledge that this doesn't make any sense, but you can't really deny that it's what you've said. Somehow the media that's covered Mayer has made a lot of people react this way.

    Flickr is one that comes to mind. Google had Picasa...

    As a response to its community's concerns, Flickr saw a substantial engineering investment from 2014-2015 or so, under Mayer's tenure. I'm afraid the best summary I've found is pretty obvious AI slop, but it's relating some real events.

    Flickr lives, Picasa was killed, Google Photos is now an extremely annoying nagware for backup services. Things could be so much worse for Flickr.

    Yahoo Answers was another one...

    God I hated Yahoo Answers.

    Mayer's attempts to make Yahoo relevant again may not have worked but it's not responsible or accurate to conclude that she was necessarily inept.

    It is my suspicion that if, say, Jack Dorsey had overseen the dismantling of Yahoo, the business press would have told us that he made a great effort but Yahoo's problems went too deep. Rather than leading us to believe that he was just inept. Or that he failed because he took the wrong amount of paternity leave.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    What about that doesn't sound like a "girlboss" to you?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (2 children)

    When I hear 'girlboss' I envision someone confident, competent, and in charge, who understands their business and is making the right choices.

    Letting a company's most promising products languish while the company loses what value it has left is not what comes to mind with 'girlboss'.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 76 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (5 children)

    if anything, it shows Mayer performing the exact kind of cognitive offloading that any AI tool worth its salt should free us up to focus on rather than doing for us.

    This has been the focus from the start, though. Almost all of the “killer apps” for AI that we’re being sold by the AI companies are about doing the creative stuff and human interaction for us. So we can spend more time being depressed, mindless worker drones, I guess?

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    "Cognitive offloading" may well be the words that doom the human race to our Idiocrasy future

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 37 points 1 week ago*

    Fuckin half wit, no wonder CEO's love AI, dumb as bricks

  • source
  • [–] 32 points 1 week ago

    Love it when these out of touch technocrats are shown being too high on their own supplies.

  • source
  • [–] 30 points 1 week ago

    She sounds like a loser, I feel bad for her kid.

  • source
  • [–] 28 points 1 week ago

    So AI is there to help psychopaths connect with family and wider society

  • source
  • [–] 26 points 1 week ago

    When you have no idea how to parent specifically because you're a fucking monster.

  • source
  • [–] 22 points 1 week ago (4 children)

    These people are so out of touch

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    It's really interesting thinking about what changed in tech and why all the leaders are like this. It used to be people developing and fitting technology to goals - mapping the world, enabling democratic power or niche hobby relationships - and that generally ended up being exciting and helpful.

    But at some point tech became captured by a few specific ideas and technology - SaaS, AI, data mining - and every CEO now tries to fit the goals to the technology. It no longer matters to these people what the benefit to the user is, they just work backwards from what the technology can do and rationalize whatever it is as the goal.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 1 week ago* (1 child)

    From what I've seen in Startups both during the 90s and more recently, the spirit in them changed from "solve a cool problem" in the 90s to "find a way to make lots of money for founders" after the Net Crash and more often than not the chosen way to make money was sell the company to investors rather than actually selling anything to customers, so the tech just needed to look like "the next big money maker" in order to get said investor money and "tech" messaging became dominated by investor hype.

    The almost pure-grifer incentives and spirit I saw become dominant in Startups from the 00s now seems to pervade the whole Tech industry.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago

    Pretty much. The industry was for 'those nerds' in the days, then dot-com came and holy shit, money to be made, but for a time, let the nerds cook because the investor class had no idea and kind of knew they had no idea.

    Then the crash put the investor class firmly at the wheel and the industry has been significantly distorted since then, motivation wise.

    Clearly good things have happened, but there's always this anti-user angle at play now.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

    When they stopped being run by engineers and all became ran by MBA's.

    That's not to say there aren't MBA's with engineering degrees etc but they didn't actually build anything themselves. They sycophanted their way to these positions of power and they'll never be able to bring the wonder and passion into tech because they have none. They have passion for business but if you get turned on by privacy policies scam story telling, who boy the world is your oyster right now.

    Now you could argue zuck was a founder engineer and he's terrible as well. I'd say he's a bad example at being anything.

    So there are exceptions. Sergey Brin is an example of an engineer that drifted but Larry was the brains. Just like woz to Steve, just like Bill to Balmer.

    Always two. One genius. One cheerleader. The cheerleader is always trapped by what is making them wealthy to parrot.

    Who is Sundar Puchai's cheerleader? Prabhakar Raghavan? We are so far away from a Larry Page keeping an idiot like Sergey in line.

    Or Satya? A sub contracted Sam Altman maybe?

    There is no culture except the culture of business to these guys. Quiet strategic relationships, reduction of ego which means no risk, no research, no bravado, and no muscle for creating.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 19 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    This woman's bad decisions brought down an Internet giant and yet she's still treated as if she is someone worth listening to.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 week ago

    "Also, find out whatever she's into and add a reminder to my calendar to send her some of whatever it is on her birthday whenever that is. It's a 'she', right?"

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    I would hate to see what it came up with based on my phone's gallery, lol

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 week ago

    I genuinely don't understand people like this who are so averse to thinking that they go out of their way to prompt a language model to get an answer that they should've known already.

    People in my life say I think to much despite the fact I'm naturally a deep thinker, quick is disappointing to hear from them because I know they use LLMs for "research", which really means to ask tops 3 questions and think you're informed.

    Well hey, at least the rich can be unthinking dumbasses too

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 1 week ago

    Had to input what the nanny told her about her kid.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 1 week ago

    Maybe CEOs aren't better than other people? Maybe they shouldn't be making important decisions.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 week ago (4 children)

    This feels a bit like an ad for dazzle.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    Because it is. She’s fully capable of coming up with three superlatives about her child, but she’d rather use her kid as a prop in a sales pitch.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 week ago (4 children)

    Wtf is a girlboss? Sounds incredibly sexist and condescending. She just better wear something cute and not bump her head on that glass ceiling.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 week ago

    2014-2018 it was used unironically to connotate women creating spaces for themselves in business - from a popular, well-meaning book of the same name

    2019 onwards it has been used sarcastically to reference performative, ineffectual feminism.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (2 children)

    You'd think she could at least use the term 'woman' to avoid coming across as a specialized dominatrix for people with an unfortunate brat fetish.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago

    Opposition is the easiest fucking job in the world

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago*

    We forget sometimes that part of women’s liberation is that a woman is free to be just as big an asshole as a man.

  • source
  • I remember when this lady built a nursery near her office but wouldn't setup a daycare for yahoo staff or allow wfh.

    She took a lot of shit for that move. Kind of sad that she had every opportunity to connect with her kids and yet doesn't know them at all.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago

    I sure hope peoole doesn't just let them have all their photos. Please make it illegal to share photos with these companies.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 1 week ago (4 children)

    Not smart just ruthless describes nearly every CEO. Uncaring and lacking empathy should be screened for from a early age. Those kids should be identified to everyone so you know to avoid their schemes and thus preventing the harm they cause. That this woman is unable to see her daughters talents and positive attributes is just in line with their missing piece of humanity.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    why do people keep having these fantasies that screening people for mental disorders and segregating them will fix any structural problems with society or magically prevent anyone evil from popping up ever again

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago* (2 children)

    Because it works. If you know someone is going to lie and manipulate you which all people who have those qualities will do without any hesitation, society will not tolerate them. These same people avoid being exposed at all cost. Anytime one of them get exposed in a social circle the circle gets better.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (1 child)

    "Because it works" without any proof lmao. You esentially want to jail from birth anyone with a cluster B disorder and hope that fixes things forever, because obviously there's an evil mental disorder that makes you forever evil with no chance of redemption and no one else is capable of lying or manipulating or becoming worse from their environment. You're an eugenicist

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago

    Not jail. Recognition. Education of others what it means. Of course the people most against this are people like this. There is no chance of redemption as you put it for people who lack a basic human characteristic. You don't really seem like you misunderstand. It seems like you understand just fine. What I think you don't like about it is how it might leave you exposed. Having seen that in your words I'm gonna do what you should do on lemmy and block you

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 week ago

    Somebody get that kid outta there!

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago

    Geesus christ.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago

    We really are living in the stupidest timeline.

    This makes Idiocracy appear optimistic.

  • source
  • [–] -3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (14 children)

    I think this sucks but I also think the headlines have never given Mayer a fair shake at anything and that also sucks. "Marissa Mayer dared to speak and we're here to get snarky about it" could apply to almost every headline I've seen that was about her. And this story charges straight to "girlboss." Ugh. Isn't there enough to criticize here without jumping straight to the kind of casual sexism we all laughed at in the 1980s? It's unprofessional.

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 week ago (13 children)

    I remember that she was getting a lot of positive press because she was public about pregnancy or something but returned to full time work like 5 days after she gave birth which is dystopian as hell.

    A real “girl boss” in a position of power and wealth and public visibility needs to use that platform to take a year or two of maternity leave and spend that time caring for the child and fighting to get those rights to everyone.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    Didn't they put a nursery in her office or something? The average worker isn't getting the accommodations she had.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (9 children)

    She got press that pointed out she was a CEO who had dared to get pregnant. It seemed to me they were pointing out that 1) a CEO who took time off to give birth was bad, and 2) a woman who wouldn't take more maternity leave was also bad.

    Way too much press about her was about her personal-life decisions rather than business prospects.

    A real “girl boss” ...

    I read "girlboss" as strictly perjorative.

    needs to use that platform to take a year or two of maternity leave

    This is tantamount to saying: a CEO mom is impossible.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (8 children)

    This is tantamount to saying: a CEO mom is impossible.

    Uhhh... No, it is not.

    Yahoo offers a generous 16 week maternity leave, and she took 2 and worked from home during. She said it wasn't part of the consideration of giving her the job when she was six months pregnant, do you honestly believe that?

    Do you honestly believe her offering to take only 2 weeks "leave" while working was a feminist or woman empowering decision? Not a compromise to land the job that wouldn't have been offered if she wanted to take time to be with her child instead?

    You and her are the ones perpetuating "CEO mom is impossible", unless they take barely any time off to be a mom and still work remotely while being "off".

    I believe a mom can be CEO AND take the full maternity leave while knowing how to delegate and have minimal need to check-in for those 16 weeks. You believe she has to act like she didn't just have a baby and return to work as soon as humanly possible in order to be a CEO.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago* (7 children)

    I don't see how you get this attitude, those conclusions, from anything I wrote.

    Yahoo offers a generous 16 week maternity leave

    Which is just a little bit shy of two years

    Do you honestly believe her offering to take only 2 weeks “leave” while working was a feminist or woman empowering decision?

    No. But I think that decision was up to her and that the press should have treated it as not-newsworthy. Any amount of maternity leave that she chose was doomed to be criticized by somebody as the wrong amount. And so, it was.

    You and her are the ones perpetuating “CEO mom is impossible”

    No. CompactFlax posited that "A real 'girl boss' in a position of power and wealth and public visibility needs to use that platform to take a year or two of maternity leave," and I'm just observing there was no realistic possibility of that happening. If this is what you demand from a CEO mom, well, you're not getting that.

    You believe she has to act like...

    I don't understand how you think you know any such thing. I comprehensively don't think like this. I don't think there's any "has to," I think those arrangements should have been her own decision and it would be better to have minimal commentary on it.

    The fact that everyone feels entitled to weigh in on her work/life balance and parenting decisions is the problem. Criticize her for her business decisions, criticize her for being an AI pusher, that's fine, that's appropriate.

    When criticism focuses on "CEO mommy" topics, that is a mode and angle of criticism that no man ever seems to face in the tech/biz news. That is sexism. Obviously. What else would that be?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (6 children)

    I was reacting to your wild conclusion.

    "Choosing" your career over time with your newborn despite having the means to do so it's not "feminism" or "woman empowerment", it's capitalism and shitty parenting. I didn't like that you are conflating them.

    At best I could accept the argument that she calculated the wealthy she could accumulate will serve her children long term better than spending time parenting them and leaving them with financial instability... But then that's not a choice, that's a difficult position forced on her but capitalism.

    The idea that she "chose" to work through the two weeks and then return back to full time work and that choice being empowering is ridiculous. The idea that pointing that out is the equivalent of saying women can't be CEOs is sexist.

    I took less than 2 weeks of paternity leave, but I would never suggest I chose that. I chose not to lose my job and keep a roof over my newborn's head, but that wasn't much of a choice.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (5 children)

    You don't understand where I'm coming from because you've completely taken it for granted that of course Mayer's every move should be publicly dissected under a microscope, not just for business soundness, but also to check if she's setting a luminous enough example for all other women everywhere.

    Which is a thing I'm refusing to do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (4 children)

    I've never considered her or put her under any kind of lense, I didn't know who she was or her story until I stumbled across this post. I don't care about CEOs in general and couldn't name any except the openly evil ones.

    Nice deflection though. I'm only engaging because your rhetoric frustrated me, when someone goes out of their way to accuse someone of being sexist and start bending logic to defend a woman's actions not by their merits but for the mere fact that they were performed by a woman, it stands out as sexist.

    You're overcompensating. Was the girl boss comment unnecessary? Possibly, I don't know if she ever referred to herself as "girl boss" explicitly... It's irrelevant though, because the meat of the argument is that she literally said "Women, this is my own bias, tend to take more photos and are more visual, and so being able to work with A.I. in a visual medium is fun".

    She was being sexist, and you ignored that and flipped the table and was outraged that the author called her girl boss.

    Not only is she suggesting we offload our emotional load to AI, she's pitching that as a woman empowering move. You should not be defending her, quite the opposite.

    I tried to look at old articles to see the sexism you claimed was displayed, which is how I discovered that she was 6 months pregnant when she took the job, but I couldn't find any. Please correct me and cite some.

    What I found is opinion pieces that referenced sexist discourse online and the stock market reaction to her. No shit people are sexist and would have been sexiest in their rhetoric, but that's not what you claimed, you claimed every headline you could see criticized her for existing as a woman.

    You don't have to defend every woman just because they are women, that's as sexist as degrading them for the same reason.

    At best, she's a victim of a sexist world who accepted perpetuating the sexist status quo for the sake of her kids, and at worst she's a terrible parent, but nothing about her story makes her a feminist champion.

    The first woman to vote wasn't a hero, the women who fought for suffrage rights were. The first woman CEO isn't a hero, she's just a CEO who happens to be a woman, and she didn't use her position to set a better precedent for women.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (3 children)

    the meat of the argument is that she literally said “Women, this is my own bias, tend to take more photos and are more visual, and so being able to work with A.I. in a visual medium is fun”.

    This is the first time you're bringing any of this up here in this thread with me. "The meat of the argument?" You have got to be joking.

    Please correct me and cite some.

    I've already got enough homework to keep me busy thanks

    You don’t have to defend every woman just because they are women

    I'm not "defending" her. ("I think this [turn toward AI] sucks" was what I said.) My comment was a criticism of the headline and the tone of this story. Of the media. How could I possibly have made that any clearer?

    At best, she’s a victim of a sexist world who accepted perpetuating the sexist status quo for the sake of her kids, and at worst she’s a terrible parent, but nothing about her story makes her a feminist champion.

    So. There's that judgement imperative I was talking about.

    Wrap your head around this: I don't care if she's a perfect feminist paragon or not. I don't care if she's perpetuating the status quo to the approximately the same extent nearly everyone else is. I don't care if she's just as disconnected a parent as every other stinking-rich mom or dad in this materialist culture of ours.

    And neither should the tech / biz media, or the chattering commentariat.

    Unless we're all going to consistently apply those same questions and judgements to the men who keep getting in front of cameras to flog their tech junk, too.

    When was the last time you got so worked up about Altman's work-life balance? About Zuckerberg's parenting choices? Is anyone terribly worried that Sundar Pichai isn't feminist enough?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (2 children)

    This is the first time you're bringing any of this up here in this thread with me. "The meat of the argument?" You have got to be joking.

    Not my argument, the article's. That you dismissed as sexist because of one word you didn't like.

    I've already got enough homework to keep me busy thanks

    Stay in school!

    And neither should the tech / biz media, or the chattering commentariat.

    Something you keep insisting is true, and despite responding with long comments, you don't have the time to Google any evidence of.

    When was the last time you got so worked up about Altman's work-life balance? About Zuckerberg's parenting choices? Is anyone terribly worried that Sundar Pichai isn't feminist enough?

    I have yet to run into someone defending them as a good parents with that lack of balance as evidence... When you make that comment I'll make the same argument again.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 6 days ago (1 child)

    Something you keep insisting is true, and despite responding with long comments, you don’t have the time to Google any evidence of.

    Google it? It's here. It's you.

    I have yet to run into someone defending them as a good parents

    Yes, exactly. I wish you could hear yourself.

    When you make that comment I’ll make the same argument again.

    What "argument?"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 6 days ago

    Google it? It's here. It's you.

    I'm not a reporter or a news media outlet, that was your repeated claim that I refuted.

    Yes, exactly. I wish you could hear yourself.

    Have you lost track of the discussion already?

  • source
  • parent