DandomRude

Probably not too many, but she seems to have landed a good job with this degree regardless.

Idk, but Disaster Girl has apparently made a good deal including a 10 percent cut on any future sales. Not that I think that this NFT has sold again for even near the original price but she will still get "royalties" from any additional sale for the looks of it. Good for her that she used this bubble in time.

I was wondering about that as well. We'll probably never know. Anyway, I'm glad that her unwanted internet fame in this timeline hasn't ruined her life and that she seems to have benefited from it instead - at least financially. That's nice, because she really deserves to be compensated for the joy she brought to the internet over the years.

How time flies. Sorry to break it to you, but Disaster Girl is now 24 and apparently working as a Smart Cities & IoT Analyst at S&P Global. Somehow even Side-Eyeing Chloe is 13 by now...

This reminds me of a story a friend who is a teacher recently told me: One of his students was so nervous during an oral exam that he could barely form a complete sentence. So the friend of mine, in consultation with the exam board, gave the poor guy a second chance on the same day - that didn't go particularly well either, but was enough to pass. The parents of the nervous student sued because this procedure did not comply with the examination regulations. They won and managed to get the exam repeated a third time - the examination board stayed unchanged. You can perhaps imagine how this went for the student, who was understandably all the more nervous the third time around. In the end, he didn't graduate, not because the examiners were vindictive, but because they had to grade the student purely based on his performance which wasn't good enough because the poor guy couldn't get a coherent sentence together again. If his parents hadn't sued, he would have graduated.

Absolutely right. But the thing is that many so-called leaders will no longer have a raison d'être if there are no more unnecessary meetings and all that fuss. Many of them do nothing all day but sit in meetings, achieve nothing and still feel very important. That's the misery of the world of work: it's not usually the best who get into management positions, it's not the most qualified and certainly not the ones who work the hardest. It's the most unscrupulous, those who pass off the work of others as their own, people who would never achieve anything on their own or in a small company that can't afford to waste salaries on froth-mongers. LinkedIn makes it clear how this all works, I think: there, too, it is not the competent people who really understand their work who have the most success, it is the busybodies, the networkers and narcissists. If the competent people set the tone, there would be no discussion about office duties in an IT company. It's only held on to so that managers can live out their fantasies of omnipotence and post nonsense on LinkedIn.

Don't clog the toilets. It's not the c-suites who have to clean that up.

Yes, and while Charles Darrow, who became the first millionaire game inventor due to the game's success, profited substantially from royalties, Lizzie Magie, the original creator of the game’s concept, sold her patent for just $500 and received no royalties.

I think the so-called KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) are a major problem of our time, because they are often defined incorrectly or misunderstood. All too often, decision-makers seem to think that the pure number of followers, for example, or engagement metrics such as likes would indicate that an account or post is successful. However, this is often not the case when other important metrics are taken into account. In e-commerce, for example, a large number of followers or high engagement figures in themselves mean nothing at all: it is not uncommon for e-commerce companies to invest a lot of money in social media management and for the KPIs of their accounts to rise accordingly - but still not sell anything via this channel (that means that the investment is not worth it, of course, because the costs are disproportionate to the sales generated; the ROI is often not good at all). I think a similar situation can be assumed for many science accounts on Mastodon, for example. Although the number of followers maybe not very high here because there are less active useres, the quality of comments can still be a lot higher. But unfortunately this cannot be quantified, or at least not easily. I therefore think that everyone should first think about what they want to achieve with their social media accounts. It then makes sense to define suitable KPIs instead of being impressed by what can be considered an indicator of success elsewhere and in a completely different context.

At this point I'm convinced that they are the only ones who can.

It's not some anonymous force forcing you to act like many of your fellow citizens do on social media. It's what the US believes, I'm affraid. Even on Lemmy. It's all "I don't like Trump" but strangely enough many still agree to some of his key positions when his name is not mentioned. It's weird.

You might want to check out the Patriot act (especially section 215) and how that plays into your believe of your constitutional rights. If there are any questions, just ask Clarence Thomas - he knows his stuff. I really don't get how you could be so blind to issues like that just because this post is about China. This is not a popularity contest - it is not US vs the world. This is about your rights, your data and your democracy. I'm from Europe and I'm kinda getting tired of reminding people from the US that your blind patriotism is just that...a blind spot that is used against the US citizens on every corner.