WesternInfidels

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?”

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?

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.

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?

An optimist is an optometrist who’s figured out how to see a better future

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.

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.

Every phone maker seems convinced that if they can be the one to make this work, they’ll be the champion of world forever, or something.

I can’t understand why a user would even want this. How many users do want this?

Online, at least, I’ve probably heard more hetero people than gay people use “partner.” In some cases they were in fact perfectly conventionally full-blown married, they just weren’t interested in sharing any more details than they had to to tell whatever story they were telling, because that detail wasn’t important for the story.

“That’s not enough, though, as I assume many comedians and dancers haven’t gone through the trouble to copyright their material,” he added. “We need a way to help those creatives without letting bad actors make more fake claims (happens all the time unfortunately).”

Creative works are copyright by default. I guess Mosseri means to say “many [performers] haven’t gone through the trouble of registering copyrights with the government or with copyright policing services,” which is, like so many other things, a hoop that big, prosperous organizations can jump through more easily than individuals can.

Does this even appeal to anyone? “We can automate the only part of consumer capitalism that’s any fun?” Seriously?

Billionaires have so much money they literally can’t spend it all. A bot could blow $100K on their behalf and they could laugh it off as a funny story.

They’ve worked very hard to divorce their fate from the fate of the general public, that has worked, and it shows in ways they don’t even perceive anymore. They don’t have any reason to look for good deals. This is strictly an imaginary scenario for little people, from their point of view.

The destruction of the book is done to mitigate some copyright concerns.

Can you explain? The First Sale doctrine means its OK to sell books after you’re done with them. I would think it would be the scanning itself that could be a copyright problem, not the disposition of the physical book after.

I thought the real reason, the main reason, was, as the article says, “Destroying books is cheaper.”

I agree that the concern over the destruction of physical books, and what impact that will have on their availability, is probably exaggerated. Heck, the actual importance of old books to the AI companies may be exaggerated, that seems to be their hype style.

It should be obvious that [founder’s] private donation to a political party is not part of [his company’s] values or mission

Riiiiiiiiiight, because it always shakes out like that