Yeah, and the reason 30 under 30 is a warning sign is because the founders that apply to and agree to do Forbes to do "30 under 30" are much more concerned with marketing than actually building a legitimate product. Legitimate under 30 founders are spending their time actually building instead.
If you are a veteran of software in a big company, we all know there will be weekly or bi-weekly meetings that some PM will set up. All the PM will do is go over the JIRA tickets and be like "is this still happening". Default answer is "no", as in "I didn't even try to reproduce it, do you think I have time to even do it?". Default answer by spineless QA person is also "didn't try it again yet". Then, the PM closes the ticket. It is much easier for QA person to say "Yes I verified it" if you are remote and developer cannot see the lies on your bad poker face.
Ooh this gives me an interesting passive-aggressive idea to counter pointless "is this still relevant" questions. "No, I haven't hit this in the last 2 days." "No, I haven't hit this since I gave up trying to do it with your tool." And so forth.
The less passive-aggressive version is to use this obviously-unhelpful answer of the obviously-unhelpful question, to actually have a conversation to get the PM to recognize that the default state of a ticket is in fact "no change." Ultimately that may turn into a stale bot if the PM realizes the policy they actually want is some sort of timeout, but at least it's not a time consuming meeting!
(Note, a cathartic thought experiment, but not really good manners to actually do!)
It is ironic that she talks about "the patriarchy" brainwashing people. I have serious doubts that she came up with the thought to blame it on the "patriarchy" herself.
One guy at our company once had this brilliant idea as well. Go to a bar and validate the idea with strangers. After all, our business idea was related to sports and they would surely be interested. I thought this was a great idea. All three of us agreed it was. Later that night, in high spirits, we went to the bar to execute our plan. We sat at the bar for two hours and talked to a grand total of zero people because we were all afraid to approach anyone and bother him or her about our frivolous, idiotic idea.
I have a friend who I suspect has resorted to answering me with AI when I ask him a question via text message that he may not know the answer to. Many people do not want to appear to not know things, so they resort to this tactic. I personally find it to be a terrible trend.
This is, like, the stupidest and most inefficient way for a government to make money.
I know it's fun and all to circle jerk about how greedy those darn bureaucrats are - but we're all aware they control the budget, right? They could just raise taxes.
I don't think they're fining companies... sigh... 10,000 dollars as some sort of sneaky "haha gotcha!" scam they're running.
The right people? I just don't think CA, which has the fourth largest GDP in the world, is trying to target the likes of OpenAI for a measley fucking 10k.
