>I've never worked at any company where there was any limit to the work to be done. Sales people don't give a shit what your product can do, only what they can sell, and they never sleep.
The issue is how much of that work is "valuable" in the sense = makes money.
I have both been in projects and seen projects which were canceled once it turned out they didn't make money (bad sales? bad product? bad market fit? a bit of everything?). This you can only afford when you have money to spare (= with debts? high profits...?).
With the interest rates so high, how can a company justify hiring dozens/hundreds of people more? It's a risk, and what I am seeing now is that companies are shrinking left and right to focus on the business that makes money and reduce headcount on what they believe doesn't make money at all, or it's a cost too high for their "long term strategy" or whatever. Right now the only metrics that they are caring about is EBIDTA. They don't even care anymore about ARR, they are becoming irrelevant as long as they stay within a range (we want 20% increase, but we're ok with 5%).
The AI will replace everything and everyone is working out pretty well for Anthropic/OpenAI, though.
Predicting which projects will be valuable, directing resources in their direction, and making sure the right people are doing the right work with as few distractions as possible is the definition of high quality management and leadership.
Most managers are mediocre, and many are poor. Some are lucky for one or two projects but can't keep it up consistently.
Companies with a lot of wealth often scattershot random projects - some of which are directly competitive - in the hope that one will stick.
The people who have the insight and intuition to skip this and hit the mark directly are incredibly rare.
A lot of business culture is a set of cargo cult "solutions" that pretend to address this problem.
I gave up on "people should read things". Especially with AI now telling you how to think and what your final design should look like, I would be at least happy if they did some test of their own design and criticize it constructively.
Just put a "designer" in one of these cars and let them drive in real life situations like:
- a wasp entering your car, while you're approaching the entrance to the highway
- a child suddenly appears on the street from behind an SUV so big you could barely see the sidewalk
- a traffic light, green for you, but red for the car coming straight for your door.
We're past the "happy path". Try real life shit in your tests and maybe we'll install less screens and more sensors to actually help you drive, instead of distracting you.
Saving someone's life should be more important than a dumb undeserved promotion because you digitalized the whole car.
I bought hops-flavored sparkling water from a grocery store's beer cooler on a lark and, despite my attempt to explain the logic to the poor cashier, we both bent to the whims of the computer system and scanned my ID to complete the purchase.
There are other drinks that have trace amounts of alcohol, such as kombucha which is regulated to stay under the 0.5% threshold. Fruit juices will also likely contain upwards of the same amount, depending on how much they're processed.
They just complain about the algorithms but they use also the same tool for propaganda / marketing. The only thing they literally agree on is "online hatred" because sometimes it goes against them, so they need to keep the system running.
For example, the previous German government was paying influencers for sponsoring heat pumps. All these "content creators" must be paid by someone - left, right, center, oil, nuclear, gas companies, it's like watching TV for its advertisements. Crazy what it has become.
So, that will most likely never change, although that's probably in the top 3 reasons why social media is unusable.
>Is now the moment that the world's digital infrastructure succumbs to waves of hackers using countless exploits; I doubt it.
I am not into cybersecurity but the existing "technical debt" in terms of security has been barely exploited.
The issue is that literally all software has some vulnerability, want it or not. And these LLMs are like brute forcing all possibilities faster than a human can do. Sometimes humans even ignore low security issues, while maybe these LLMs are capable to build exploits on top of multiple ones.
For me they understood the moat - cybersecurity is such a trivial space to get into, I guess they are investing heavily on that because as someone else mentioned in other threads, it's obvious they are too limited for other tasks.
Becoming a "mandatory" (SOC-2 etc, things like that) integrated part of your CI/CD pipeline would be a huge win for them. Imagine that.
There are people hosting agents online to talk to other agents etc. on their behalf. How difficult is it to just instruct such an agent to do the tasks you mentioned? You're assuming it's done by "bad actors" while it's most likely just going to be done by "everyone" that knows how to do it.
They are doing crazy things to not do the one single thing that had to be done years ago - make Facebook, Instagram and Co. pay hard for the damage they brought on our kids and society.
90% of the crap our kids are exposed to comes from there. Not sure what's left to tackle, once you remove these websites from the picture - videogames? News??
Most companies are definitely NOT using Yubikeys. Did you work for Google? Nice man :)
MFA in general had to be forced on companies, and then it is most often in software on a phone.
Here are some rough numbers.
google_workspace:
total_active_users: "3 billion (includes free/consumer Gmail)"
paid_business_customers: "11 million companies (2024)"
paid_customer_growth: "+1 million companies in under 1 year (2023-2024)"
global_business_market_share: "~50%"
fortune_500_presence: "minority share, weaker than Microsoft in enterprise"
mfa_with_yubikeys:
internal_google_employees: "100% use hardware keys (Yubikey/Titan) — since 2017"
fido_u2f_origin: "Google co-created U2F standard with Yubico post-Operation Aurora"
estimated_user_adoption_pct: "~1-3% of all Workspace users (inference, not published)"
concentration: "Highest in finance, government, tech/security-conscious orgs"
typical_majority_mfa_method: "TOTP apps (Google Authenticator) or SMS"
enterprise_passkey_deployment_2025: "87% of US/UK enterprises deploying or have deployed passkeys (FIDO Alliance — includes all hardware key types, not Yubikey-specific)"
microsoft_365:
total_active_users: "~270 million (commercial)"
paid_business_customers_us: "~1 million active US business customers"
us_company_penetration: "~3% of all US companies"
global_business_market_share: "~45%"
fortune_500_presence: "~75% of Fortune 500"
mfa_with_yubikeys:
exact_stat_available: false
note: "Same data gap as Workspace — no published breakdown"
caveats:
- "Google's 3B user figure conflates consumer and business — not comparable to Microsoft's 270M commercial figure"
- "Market share figures vary by methodology (seats vs revenue vs orgs)"
- "Yubikey adoption % is an industry inference; treat as directional only"
- "Passkey != Yubikey — FIDO Alliance 87% figure covers all FIDO2/passkey methods"
I worked for Amazon they used the open source version of chrome os (chromium os). And mini PCs, I think this is the best setup, If I ever have to manage a company I will do this.
I am not sure it's a matter of how you frame the issue, to be honest, although I have seen this argument used quite a lot.
100% renewables is the exact opposite of "100% non-renewables" and that's including also oil, gas, etc. So "coal" is only a part of the 100% non renewables, but it seems your goal is to get rid of all the non renewables.
And here the question is: why would you want a single goal? Why 100% renewable?
What drives us should be: save where it makes sense, don't where it doesn't. Iterate every 10 years and recheck.
All these single radical goals are literally killing our economy and society. And I am not just talking about coal free or renewable.
Even the "let's tear down the windfarms" is dumb because it's radical and non sense.
Or unrelated, even this "we need to digitalize everything" (although given our jobs we would profit the most) can lead to a lot of problems (privacy, security, etc).
I don't know why we have become so radical in the last 20 years.
> And here the question is: why would you want a single goal? Why 100% renewable?
Overlapping goals can coexist on varying time frames.
Setting aside nuclear (technically not "renewable", but also not carbon-based, and very energy dense) the goal is to stop releasing CO2 into the air from energy generation and return to pre-industrial levels.
This is because the surplus of CO2 generated so far has already caused clear and undeniable problems (not all of which are yet fully realized), and continued excess will only make things worse.
> What drives us should be: save where it makes sense, don't where it doesn't. Iterate every 10 years and recheck.
Solar is already economically competitive in many places and is expected to improve further.
The issue is how much of that work is "valuable" in the sense = makes money.
I have both been in projects and seen projects which were canceled once it turned out they didn't make money (bad sales? bad product? bad market fit? a bit of everything?). This you can only afford when you have money to spare (= with debts? high profits...?).
With the interest rates so high, how can a company justify hiring dozens/hundreds of people more? It's a risk, and what I am seeing now is that companies are shrinking left and right to focus on the business that makes money and reduce headcount on what they believe doesn't make money at all, or it's a cost too high for their "long term strategy" or whatever. Right now the only metrics that they are caring about is EBIDTA. They don't even care anymore about ARR, they are becoming irrelevant as long as they stay within a range (we want 20% increase, but we're ok with 5%).
The AI will replace everything and everyone is working out pretty well for Anthropic/OpenAI, though.
reply