Technology
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
sometimes you bring on a ceo just to get some controversial thing done. they can eat the blame and then leave
You bring in a female CEO to take the fall. The narrative gets to be about her weak leadership.
Ellen Pao wasn’t even CEO for a full year. Reddit clearly put her in charge to take the heat - which they knew would be ample based on her sex alone.
So replacing a woman with a woman, and then bringing back the original woman is what made you think the fall person had to be a woman? Reddit may have done so.. but I find it hard to believe this was sex/gender related. Otherwise it would have made more sense to replace the woman with a man, have him take the fall and go back to Whitney so it made her / the company look better long term.
I'm embarrassed it took me so long to realize this. Somebody explained that to me recently, within the context of a conversation about layoffs. That CEO had no prior CEO experience, was only there for less than a year, and was part of the board of directors. In hindsight it seems so obvious.
They called it an Axe Man, in my time. I've been at two companies hit with them, and I follow them AND the CEO who stepped down (once a reverted permanent one and the other a long-term leave) to see which companies are fucked next.
More specifically here it's called a glass cliff
Exactly this, they are usually young too and they know their only job is to fire ppl and/or do decisions that will make most if not all unhappy. I have only seen it once my self but a lot of friends went through that at their company.
the sad part is the act they put on coming in. many at the company will think this is a real hire that will bring about good cultural change
So like a corporate sin eater?
Wow, as a gay dude reading the comments here, straight dating sucks, why is it even like that?
Is the signature feature that women initiate or was that some other app?
Yeah. I used the BFF version for a bit to try and find folks in my area to hang out with. It's a really horrible app. When someone messages you, you have 24 hours to respond. If you don't then the two of you get unmatched. I can understand something like unlatching after some time period without responding, but just 24 hours? Ick.
We have shareholders to consider! Now get on with your relationship before we unnecessarily cut you off.
Brought to you by Match, "You're next Bumble, you think they fucked up Bumble already!? Just you wait!'
This just gave me the (shit post) idea of an app where VC funders can swipe on projects they want to invest in or not
That would make a great parody sketch.
It was.
There's a big problem with the "women message first" gimmick, and it's that they just don't.
If they don't simply let the match expire, you either get a shitty Gif, or something along the lines of "hey."
Maybe one in ten will actually send a message that genuinely starts a conversation.
it would work better if it was "women swipe first'. men can look at and swipe the women who swiped them already. this solves two problems:
- women are not seen by anyone they don't want to be
- men don't need to spend hours swiping hundreds of women
please give me 1 million dollars
That's the premium feature in pretty much every dating app. You get to see who likes you but you have to pay the money to find out if anyone swiped on you at all.
They imply that lots of people swiped on you but you don't actually know until after you've given the money.
So basically your plan is to just remove the con part which I'm all in favor of.
I literally saw so many profiles being like “I don’t message first”, like do you even understand what the app you’ve signed up for is?
I always wondered if they realised we actually can't send the first message.
you either get a shitty Gif, or something along the lines of "hey."
So same result as when men message first.
That ratio was much higher for me. I'd say about 70% sent a message. Probably work on the profile, make it more interesting? If that is now really gone I'm not sure whether I ever install that App anymore, it was nice not having to come up with first messages with questionable outcome...
Ohh you mean the "pay for every little thing" -feature? Dang I really liked that
Also regarding cost: I have yet to hear how a dating app solves the paradox that success means losing a customer. The incentives of the company and customer are not aligned and actually quite the opposite.
The company wants you to stay and spend as much as possible on the platform (optimizing to keep you just engaged enough to stick with it), whereas the ideal outcome for the customer means not needing the app in as little time as possible.
Oh they solved it alright. They just make it harder to find matches. Could you imagine the fuckery that goes on with their algorithms. Some engineer dialing back the chance of falling in true love. The executive is like, "We need to turn down finding true love to .0007% because we are losing too many customers!"