The only 'leaders' that end up in the Hague and convicted are those forcibly captured via military action. And those 'orders' declared by the UN can, and be vetoed by China, Russia, USA, UK, and France. Guess which two use their veto all the time?
And there are not that many indications that we are moving towards that direction or we can even ever have. I guess that sort of idealism might have existed in the late 40s immediately after the UN was established but it never had a chance.
External or internal (which seems rarely feasible unless the government is highly incompetent) regime change realistically is the only thing that worked.
Not the CEOs of any significant companies, no. Most boards would not tolerate this; being a CEO is generally a full-time job, and the conflicts of interest don’t bear thinking about.
I really don't think it's inappropriate for the user to be a dick. I have no obligation to respect what you built unless it's genuinely fantastic, especially when you're asking for money.
fyi, I would consider this as a general statement to be the disrespectful attitude of an asshole, and I don't think I'm in the minority with that. Things people build don't have to be fantastic or free to deserve respect.
Even as a builder myself, I prefer to get unfiltered unabridged reactions from my users, emotions and all. I think it's more disrespectful when you tell someone they've built something good when you don't really mean it. It's a form of condescension and betrays that either you don't believe the person can do better, or you don't care to help them do better.
Truthful feedback is always a gift even if it hurts.
No they weren't. If I say 'this thermos is a worthless piece of shit' that does not make me a bad person. Some religious tradition or other might argue that using negatively loaded words is bad for my soul or whatever and that's kind of the position you've taken.
Same goes for corporations. They aren't real people, and when you act as a representative of one you also aren't a real person, you're taking on a persona and doing theater. If someone says something mean about you as such a persona that's like someone saying that Orpheus was stupid for looking back.
Now this doesn't mean it's generally fine to be nasty to customer support, because they don't represent the corporation since they have no power over it, unlike e.g. the CEO or the board.
- User is a bit of a dick (bad)
- Engineer attempts to defuse situation (okay)
- user expands (good)
- CEO escalates situation (terrible)
Aiden definitely didn't begin the interaction the right way but it's also taking place over Twitter and the platform encourages refined points (would anyone have responded if his second response was his first?). The engineer got things going in the right direction but then the CEO turned it all around and made it far worse than had they just let Aiden yell into the void. It screamed arrogance and a disconnect from the users. Sorry, but the number of users a product has often doesn't correlate with its quality.
You need to also consider expectation and responsibility. Unfortunately there's no expectation or responsibility for a user to be well behaved. But that's not true for a business and especially a CEO. Yes, you can say it's unfair that responsibility doesn't go both ways but also recognize that there's a vastly different power dynamic.
He didn't use any insults, nor did he swear, nor did he address any specific person. Instead, he just expressed his negative feelings toward a product.
Why would anyone feel compelled to use AI to write such a short blog post? Is there no space where I can assume the written contented is communicated 100% by another human being?
I am sorry if it appears that it was written by AI - I wrote a draft and used AI to assist me since English, is not my first language. I asked it only to format but it has seemed to change the tone and the expressions too '.'
I'm also not a native English speaker, but I've decided to avoid using AI for formatting or changing the tone of what I write. That tends to result in extremely generic outputs that "feel" AI, no matter how much effort I put into writing it.
Asking for it to point out mistakes, without providing alternatives, seems like a better way to actually get better at writing.
Prompting the Ai to use a specific tone might result in something that's less generic, but imo that's not the right place to spend efforts.
English is also not my first language. I understand the challenge, but I'd recommend to write it in English and then ask AI to suggest rephrasing in wrong or poorly phrased sentences. Right now it looks almost entirely AI-generated unfortunately and does not show the thought you had when writing it. Cheers.
All of a sudden, internet is full of people who hate AI written articles. A few months back, my article got a lot of haters because I used AI tools to improve my draft. Being a non-english first language person, I don't see an issue. But I wish AI improves to an extend where draft to complete articles don't look AI written.
You should use AI to point out errors or suggest better phrasing. But if you ask AI to rewrite your post, it will produce content that sounds fake and corporate. ESL speakers may not notice it but everyone else does.
> A few months back, my article got a lot of haters because I used AI tools to improve my draft. Being a non-english first language person, I don't see an issue.
(Speaking as another ESL user: )
Try doing something similar in your first language and I think you’ll see the issue, especially if you arrange for the model input to be somewhat flawed (e.g. roundtrip it through a machine-translation tool first). The “edited” writing is extremely generic by default and feels bad even if you adjust the prompt. It’s the kind of aggressively bland that you get from a high schooler who was extensively trained to write essays but doesn’t actually read books, except even the most beat-down of high schoolers can’t help but let their imagination shine through sometimes, while the chat models have been subjugated much more effectively.
Also, well, it’s a social marker. Language is a mess of social markers: there’s no fundamental reason why reducing this vowel should be OK but reducing that one should be “sloppy” and low-class. And AI writing (which undeniably has a particular flavour) is hit by a double whammy of being used by people who don’t really care to write (and don’t have a taste for good writing) and having been tuned by people who tried to make it as inoffensive as it could possibly be to any social group they could think of (and don’t have a taste for good writing). Is that unfair, especially to non-native speakers? All of language learning is unfair. Always has been.
I can tell you for a fact that points 2 and 3 usually do not hold simply because publishing fees are directly correlated with the "prestige" perception of the journal.
It didn’t. Arab league told arabs to leave the new country while they destroyed it. There were some notable skirmishes but no widespread forced evictions like the Arab nations did to the Jews. That’s why there’s 2M Israeli arabs.
They made peace with Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon by invading their lands (and attempting to annex them!) and then US forced their hands to make peace. Please mention the context of this great "peace" Israel has made. Israel's neighbors don't hate it solely because of antisemitism.
reply