CapuccinoCoretto

+1 for gigglesnort.

This is exactly the S-Tier business move I've been calling for all along. The most impactful places for AI automation are the c-suite. Think about it! The most expensive employees. Mostly useless and performative. They "hallucinate" at least as much as LLMs. It's the perfect place.

It also has proven business parallels. Remember when EVs started. Car companies struggled to break into markets with low end, eco & cost conscious models. EVs kicked into high gear with the high margin performance models like Tesla S. The high margins justified the production costs and only as they gradually refined the technology and scaled up did the costs go down to fit successively lower markets.

Zuckerberg gunning for the Global C-Suite is exactly what McKinsey&Co would advise complete with entirely predictable distrous consequences for anyone even remotely involved. We're entering a new era - This bad-boy right here is kicking off what historians will refer to as The Second Corporate Wars. I approve. Let the bodies hit the floor.

What if "burning cash" wasn't a metaphor? The grift collects cash. Then there is a pit surrounded by stones and a significant pyre?

Let me put this into my trusty Hyper-Normalization translator:

Wrrr..bizzt..click..click...blu-blu...ding!

"The circus is refining their act to adjust to an audience who is bored of business as usual. The clowns are being replaced with a freak show comprised of shit-eaters, geeks who bite the heads of chickens and a bearded lady whose beard is ZZ Top grade but the beard in on their ballsack. The lion show have reversed the roles and now one lion tames a group of ravenous trainers and makes them do tricks. The mime has been supplemented with pickpockets in the audience."

Bad faith. Grow up.

If you stoped repeating the same mistakes over and over again and tried to think "where could this be right" instead of " find a wrong, even a stretch that doesn't belong and disprove" you would be a more reasonable person to talk to.

E.g. (clearly needed here)

You think the rarity of Bill Gates disproves my point. I say a friend who is neurodivergent and a high school drop out literally just bought cleaning supplies and started going door to door to businesses on a strip asking if they needed a good scrubbing. He did a few gigs on the spot for pocket change, but quickly found several of the 2nd story offices were displeased with their after-hours cleaning contractors. A few offered a trial to prove my dude could do a good job. Once proven they offered annual contracts. The landlords and tenants all talk to each other and word got around. Boom! Entrepreneur. Today he has 3 vans and 7 employees. Still doesn't know what standard deviation is.

This type of opportunity is everywhere. It's not the kind that is offered. It's the kind you find or make yourself. The biggest barrier to entry here is not trying. I could go on all day. But why? The point is made and you'll either get it, or not.

As long as my right to destroy is intact, it's deplorable, but manageable.

2 in 10 Europeans are stupid and/or Chinese/American.

B-b-b-b-baby y-you ain't s-s-seen n-nothing yet!

None of what you say is wrong. Statistically speaking you're making two mistakes:

You are overemphasizing what is the primary path for most and concluding that everything else should be excluded. Why cut someone struggling from 31.46% of the jobs that don't fit the optimal 1st standard distribution?

It literally isn't as rare as you think. I know a great many overeducated and unemployed as well as a great many high-school dropouts that are Entrepreneurs, Sr Consulting Software Architects and Successful Artists.

When someone is struggling, consider the normal path might be why. A broader approach that doesn't prejudice viable alternatives for the crime of being "not the most popular option" is prefferrable.

You misunderstand. If we get impossibly bright light fireworks, I don't want to shield myself from them. Considering what comes next, I want to ~~walk~~ drunkenly stumble into the light and be free.

This is good. But "need" is perhaps too strong. Lots of highly successful people without education. Lots of highly educated people who couldn't cut it. Plus it too has barriers of it own (costs, loansharking student loans)

It's good, but isn't the only way.