A plumber puts an ad in the paper / Google for their services in your area. This makes you aware of their services. This is marketing their services to you. By seeing the ad, are you manipulated into using their services?
Marketers are brought into a company to help bring awareness to the company’s services. Without marketing in some form, your product never makes it to your customers. There are good and bad marketers, just like anything else other profession.
Saying that it’s “evil” and wondering “how they sleep at night” is unfair to your own intelligence and its ability assess the value of this function.
Disclaimer: I work at OpenAI. Lots of people! I get a lot of value out of these already.
If it helps, here's an example: Our team shares wonderful customer demos in Slack. In the past, these would get lost in Slack unless someone took the time to manually create the documentation and log it in Notion.
That meant no one really logged them and the example of good work was lost.
Now, I tag workspace agent in the slack thread, it reads the thread, puts it into the right shape, and logs it (with considerably high fidelity). Saves us time, does the job no one wanted to do, and helps new hires+tenured folks like me learn from our colleagues.
(I used to use Codex to do the same thing by sharing the slack link, but now can skip that step).
That’s a very dismissive point of view to the seriousness of the situation. He had a Molotov cocktail thrown at his home in the immediate aftermath of an article that painted him in a negative light. The two may not be connected but seem to be.
I can't imagine a self-driving car request via an app could be accomplished without _someone_ knowing / tracking your travel patterns. You can't do cash transactions because that would be rife for smash-n-grabs from others.
A blip of zero controls - not ideal! Although hearsay from a passenger hardly sounds reliable.
The thing I'm wondering is: are quality issues happening elsewhere? Or are we caught in an anti-Boeing hype cycle? I'm skeptical whenever the media really grabs hold of a narrative that's so one-sided.
You are correct - only third-party, cross domain cookies. WSJ and other writers simplify to "cookies" because it's a simpler headline and only a small percentage of people understand the difference (even tech workers!). It's terribly annoying that they do this because first party cookies are invaluable and will never go away until there is something just as easy to maintain state on on a website (e.g. remembering that you're logged in from page to page, session to session).
I was hoping for more from the article. It lacks pretty much any detail that might actually prove to be a lesson.
It cites a layoff, a change in the stock price, and a few assumptions about how Foley generally isn't good at their business operations. Then it goes into vague platitudes about how a business is more than an idea. It doesn't mention anything of substance.
Agreed. Although there is a comparison made regarding quality and readiness of code from Auto-gpt vs ChatGPT but that's about it. Also, autonomous agents seem expensive, limited in functionality, and somewhat not reliable (based on the article). That hampers the validity of the title from the start.
Any sources to back up the second statement? It doesn't match up with my experience.
FWIW, I've worked from home since 2020 for a company that is remote friendly. We've had employees that want to work from home but they don't do very much work when they do. Doesn't go for everyone but it's my anecdotal experience.
Yes, there is safety in size. But operational capabilities of companies using the big banks would be cut as well.
To draw an analogy, should every business owner with physical goods only sell and distribute their goods through Amazon and/or Walmart? Yes, their size provides many benefits, but also has dramatic costs to their business and impacts how customers are served.
I don't agree. There are many instances where using a boutique or smaller institution is better for your business to run.
My company used to bank with Bank of America. It was awful. They seemed to have no concept of how to work with small business or a tech startup. We moved to another bank (not svb) and it's been a much better experience.
Only leveraging the giants of a given industry is not good for innovation nor specialization.
What you prefer to live in is not the point of the article. It's about why some large, many unit buildings appear imposing / overwhelming while others less so.
Nicely done by the author. His line at the beginning stuck out to me: "How do you find such sensitivity? First by example, then blundering through."
I've found the same for my own experience with photography, videography, and editing applied to the both of them.
For anyone interested in trying to figure out why they like a particular photograph and how to find their own style, I recommend Pat Kay on YouTube. He has a wonderful Visual Language series that has helped me put shape to my preferences. He does videos on editing, as well.
I wish a VC's recommendation or direction was all it took to get a deal done. Getting a "lofty Enterprise license" through procurement is so much harder than you are stating. They can make an introduction, sure, but very few VCs are micromanaging to the point of determining a portfolio company's tech stack.
Source: a decade of VC funded Enterprise saas company selling experience