Anoncast allows users who hold a certain balance of a ERC20 token to prove ownership (without revealing the wallet address) and make posts to farcaster, a decentralized social media site.
It's not like most the popular existing ones are really good (or feel good to use). They mostly have the benefit of momentum.
I almost think there's no way to make a good build system...without making it far harder when you need to do something slightly different. Rust has a simple build system, but it really depends on the package manager, and custom build setup is a build script in Rust...so the build system has to build the build script...
Because they didn't. According to layoffs.fyi Ebay laid off 200-500 people last year as well.
But even if Ebay did go on a hiring kick, is it true that all of those employees had to be laid off? None of them could be retrained?
Why is it that so many companies seems to regularly make the *same* mistake of over-hiring and then "needing" to downsize?
And if Ebay did a layoff last year why not lay off these people a year ago? Did they miscalculate last year? Was this layoff planned more than a year out? What changed in a year that makes Ebays calculations more accurate now?
> Why is it that so many companies seems to regularly make the same mistake of over-hiring and then "needing" to downsize?
Perhaps the issue is with the assumption that it is a mistake. Or rather, that it is the kind of mistake that is readily foreseeable or a mistake where incentives didn’t force you “over hire”.
When there’s rapid growth the be had, why would you not staff up lest you lose share.
Yup. One takeaway I took from the book "Factfulness", is a useful exercise for
encountering bad news; ask "would the opposite news have reached me?". The answer is almost certainly, no.
Exactly... It's a big fat bait and switch. Don't tell me they didn't know what all the costs of this was going to be. They get deals by committing to prices for a number of years. They know the costs of IP, production, cloud streaming, etc. They didn't build this whole thing going into it blind.
The only other thing that I think it could be... they don't have as many subscribers as they planned. People fucking sick of 69,420 streaming services with no content. People sick of getting milked by subscriptions.
> Don't tell me they didn't know what all the costs of this was going to be.
They... didn't. You think, back in 2017 when they were planning the service, they knew how much programming they'd producing six years in the future and at what price point?
Corporations aren't nearly as smart as you think they are. Budgets are changed on a year-by-year basis according to how consumer behavior is different from what they predicted, and how the competition and overall market is different as well from what they predicted.
> They get deals by committing to prices for a number of years.
No idea what you're talking about. What deals? Committing to what prices? Apple TV+ isn't purchasing existing shows. They're making Apple TV originals. The budget for each season of a TV show is set shortly after that show gets ordered/renewed for a first/subsequent season, and it changes based on how successful the show is.
They're not "going into it blind", but predictions for anything -- viewership, costs, competitor prices -- are very often off by a factor of 2 within a year or two in the corporate world. Apple isn't made of oracles, just regular business analysts.
