I've been on vacation, so I haven't been following the Stack Overflow moderator strike.1 Not that there has been much progress. Negotiations stalled for a variety of reasons. Meanwhile Stack Overflow's CEO, Prashanth Chandrasekar, dug the company's hole a bit deeper during an interview with VentureBeat. Not to be confused with the [Writers and Actors Guilds ↩
  • BaroqueInMind@kbin.social
    382·
    11 months ago

    His golden parachute value is tied to the stock value of the company, so of course he doesn’t care about long term projections, only short term while he’s still at the company for a couple years.

      • dan0@programming.dev
        1461·
        11 months ago

        Ah yes the same evil capitalism that:

        1. Allowed SO to exist in the first place
        2. Have market incentive to get anywhere near as good as they once were

        Do you have a better system in mind?

          • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
            151·
            11 months ago

            Obviously anything that succeeds in a capitalist economy succeeded because of capitalism, and anything that succeeds in a not-fully-capitalist economy does so in spite of the corrupting influence of socialism.

            Remember, capitalism can’t fail; it can only be failed!

            Slash S.

          • dan0@programming.dev
            310·
            11 months ago

            Answer my original question first and you have your proof or not. If you can’t answer, there’s your proof.

            Yeah, information was freely traded before the advent of capitalism, and you’re still free to walk over to your neighbor’s house and ask questions about your code, but they’re not going to be near the quality of a large scale service like SO.

            Where do you expect the resources to come from to have and serve content reliably? They don’t run on hatred of capitalism, they run on money.

            • Eldritch@lemmy.world
              5·
              11 months ago

              Prove your claim first then ask him to prove his. Even you yourself just admitted such things existed before capitalism. Therefore you concede his point. Prove your point.

            • mint_tamas@lemmy.world
              2·
              11 months ago

              In the early days of the internet, most content was not financially motivated. It was motivated by wanting to connect and a genuine altruistic feeling

        • foo@programming.dev
          161·
          11 months ago

          Stack overflow could only generate and moderate its content through collectivism.

          • dan0@programming.dev
            32·
            11 months ago

            That’s true, but does your answer on SO pay the bills for running and serving the content?

          • whatsarefoogee@lemmy.world
            85·
            11 months ago

            That legitimately reads like it was written by a teenager who played a bunch of strategy games.

            So much of it is “this is how it will be” in a prescriptive tone as if you can just will things into existence.

            You could describe perfect capitalism in this exact manner, but obviously things don’t work in real life according to your perfect scenario.

            • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
              43·
              11 months ago

              Name a single country that actually implemented communism and wasn’t undermined by the West with coups, sanctions, or outright invasion.

              Oh and the word you’re looking for is “successful”. “Successive” is not in any way a synonym.

              • LoafyLemon@kbin.social
                73·
                11 months ago

                China is successful from the capitalistic point of view, but it failed to uphold the ideals and principles of the system described in the document. The exploitation of the people is through the roof.

                Edit:

                To further explain my point: Communism is a flawed system that cannot exist in its idealistic form due to the excessive concentration of power in the state, leading to three potential outcomes:

                1. The collapse of the country.
                2. The transformation into a state capitalist system, as seen in China.
                3. The transformation into an authoritarian regime, as seen in North Korea.

                Communism is, in my opinion, a pipe dream because it proposes a classless, stateless society where the means of production are collectively owned and wealth is distributed equally among all members. However, in practice, historical attempts at implementing communism have faced challenges in terms of human nature, central planning inefficiencies, and lack of incentives, leading to economic stagnation, authoritarian rule, and often the collapse of the system.

              • Perfide@reddthat.com
                41·
                11 months ago

                China is communist in name only, in practice they are the definition of State Capitalism. I also wouldn’t describe a dictatorship that commits genocide as a success, in any case.

                  • Perfide@reddthat.com
                    3·
                    11 months ago

                    Are you mixing me up with someone else? That was my first comment in this entire thread so that’s a lot of assumptions to throw on me. Nowhere did I say there weren’t socialist/communist success stories. The person I replied to specifically singled out China as an example of a communist success, all I pointed out is that they’re neither communist nor successful.