▲ 436 ▼ Elon solves chess (thelemmy.club) submitted 7 hours ago by negativenull@piefed.world to c/microblogmemes@lemmy.world 107 comments fedilink hide all child comments source
[–] The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world 98 points 6 hours ago (4 children) I don't know what he has against chess, but this is like the 3rd time I've seen him try to convince everyone that it's pointless because of computers. permalink fedilink source hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] tired_n_bored@lemmy.world 2 points 22 minutes ago* (last edited 11 minutes ago) I enjoy see sport competitions because I like to see what humans are capable of. I don't need a so-called genius to prove that we can create robots running faster than humans. Likewise I don't need to be told that Stockfish is stronger than Carlsen because then what? We should stop playing because a machine is better? Also, what does "solving chess mean"? We already have algorithms trying every possible move permalink fedilink source parent [–] negativenull@piefed.world [S] 112 points 6 hours ago (5 children) Another classic example that proves this: permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 4 points 1 hour ago Lol it means he has the same problem with it that I did: there's absolutely no random element to blame so when you lose you just fucking lose and that's all there is to it. The other person's brain just stepped on your brain and wiped it off on the curb. permalink fedilink source parent [–] socsa@piefed.social 19 points 2 hours ago Wow the most cringe comment possible. Amazing. He keeps doing it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world 25 points 4 hours ago My theory is that he's frustrated that he can't manage a team or pay someone to get better at it for him. The humility it takes to be a beginner at something is uncomfortable when you have a huge ego. permalink fedilink source parent [–] lonefighter@sh.itjust.works 116 points 5 hours ago (2 children) What I take from this is "I can't cheat, so I won't play" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] nymnympseudonym@piefed.social 77 points 5 hours ago "I keep losing because this game is TOO SPUPID" permalink fedilink source parent [–] bedwyr@piefed.ca 21 points 5 hours ago (1 child) Oh you can cheat at chess.com. People use engines to suss out the best moves and plug them into their games. Chess.com spots many, but not all of them, you will get notices after the fact that your rating has been changed upwards because they detected them cheating. It's quite common. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] huppakee@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago He is talking about when he was young though permalink fedilink source parent [–] StellarExtract@lemmy.zip 37 points 5 hours ago (1 child) It's written like a deliberate parody of people like him, it's so ludicrous. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SlurpingPus@lemmy.world 1 point 1 hour ago If it's real, it's the first tweet by him I've seen that's actually funny. Perfectly leans into the absurdity of that position. permalink fedilink source parent [–] DandomRude@lemmy.world 56 points 6 hours ago (1 child) I'm pretty sure it's because he can't stand losing. The man clearly suffers from a narcissistic personality disorder. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world 18 points 4 hours ago (1 child) Right? I'm sure he expected to immediately be a god at chess with no studying or practice, then got upset when that wasn't the case. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] DandomRude@lemmy.world 25 points 4 hours ago (1 child) Yes, because of his financial success, he considers himself a genius—which he very obviously never was. This is a common trait among billionaires. Many of them are psychopaths who have amassed their wealth through utter unscrupulousness, irresponsibility in the form of an absurd willingness to take risks, and sheer luck. In the case of Musk, Thiel, and various others, that stroke of luck was PayPal. That company was so successful that it made all of its investors immeasurably rich—it was more a matter of chance that PayPal succeeded, and everything that followed really wasn’t all that difficult because that kind of money cannot lose anymore no matter how ridiculous stupid someone might be. That’s precisely the problem: We only hear about the people who bet everything on one card and won—they’re portrayed as geniuses, which they never were. We never hear anything about all those who failed miserably—and that’s the vast majority. Billionaires aren’t geniuses or even above-average in intelligence. Their financial success has, in the rarest of cases, anything to do with intelligence. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] village604@adultswim.fan 5 points 3 hours ago (2 children) Some of them might be considered marketing geniuses, like Jobs was. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] DandomRude@lemmy.world 7 points 2 hours ago* (3 children) I would rather consider Steve Wozniak than Steve Jobs. Jobs was undoubtedly excellent at selling products, and he was certainly a smart (and also ruthless) businessman, but the pioneer—and the one who actually "did the thing"—was Wozniak. It’s true, of course, that Wozniak probably wouldn’t have been able to make his product a success on his own, but that’s precisely where the problem lies: Bill Gates is certainly no fool either, but DOS—the product that made Microsoft the billion-dollar-company that it is today—was developed by someone else, namely Gary Kildall. Gates’s achievement consisted mainly of making a lot of money from it. He did just that, and did it well, while Kildall was fobbed off with a ridiculously small sum relative to the product’s success, since he was in a weak position at the time. Although Gates was far more technically adept than Jobs, his core qualities were essentially the same—a good sence for business and a utter lack of scruples: Kildall never received a bonus payment from Microsoft for his work that would have even remotely acknowledged his importance. There are many people in the IT sector who are worthy of admiration, but almost none of those who truly deserve it are among those the industry or rather the public celebrates as pioneers or visionaries—these are almost exclusively businesspeople who played only a marginal role, if any, in the development of the products they market. In my view, success stories like Apple or Microsoft are fundamentally no longer possible today, since visionary spirit, wisdom, and inventiveness have been permanently replaced by the inhuman logic of cutthroat capitalism, which the U.S., above all, embodies. Its heroes are always the wrong ones—not those who have advanced humanity through their achievements, but always those who have known how to exploit others particularly ruthlessly for their own ends. These people lead the Western world today, which is why it stands on the brink of total collapse, since these people know nothing but boundless greed. They are utterly unfit to lead millions upon millions of people—yet that is precisely what they seek to do in their pathological hubris. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] village604@adultswim.fan 1 point 45 minutes ago I really think Jobs dying was the start of the tech industry enshittification. While he was a massive cunt and didn't personally develop the products, he pushed his people to innovate, and the rest of the industry followed to try to keep up. Once iPhones became yearly iterative bullshit, the industry followed. But Moore's Law slowing down does come into play. permalink fedilink source parent [–] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 3 points 2 hours ago The thing about The Woz is, he showers. permalink fedilink source parent [–] SlurpingPus@lemmy.world -2 points 1 hour ago (1 child) Did you write that wall of text to say that Wozniak was the marketing genius instead of Jobs? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] village604@adultswim.fan 2 points 43 minutes ago I'm pretty sure they were saying that while Woz was the real genius that made the product, simply making a superior product isn't a guarantee it'll be successful. In reality, you need both people. permalink fedilink source parent [–] huppakee@lemmy.world 4 points 2 hours ago He understood the market and knew what products to put there, I'd say he is a genius at that - but imo a marketing genius would be someone who can sell anything no matter how shitty the product is, so i'd say that term would be better fitting for his competitors at Microsoft for example. permalink fedilink source parent [–] red_tomato@lemmy.world 4 points 4 hours ago Can’t lose to chess if you refuse to play it permalink fedilink source parent
[–] tired_n_bored@lemmy.world 2 points 22 minutes ago* (last edited 11 minutes ago) I enjoy see sport competitions because I like to see what humans are capable of. I don't need a so-called genius to prove that we can create robots running faster than humans. Likewise I don't need to be told that Stockfish is stronger than Carlsen because then what? We should stop playing because a machine is better? Also, what does "solving chess mean"? We already have algorithms trying every possible move permalink fedilink source parent
[–] negativenull@piefed.world [S] 112 points 6 hours ago (5 children) Another classic example that proves this: permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 4 points 1 hour ago Lol it means he has the same problem with it that I did: there's absolutely no random element to blame so when you lose you just fucking lose and that's all there is to it. The other person's brain just stepped on your brain and wiped it off on the curb. permalink fedilink source parent [–] socsa@piefed.social 19 points 2 hours ago Wow the most cringe comment possible. Amazing. He keeps doing it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world 25 points 4 hours ago My theory is that he's frustrated that he can't manage a team or pay someone to get better at it for him. The humility it takes to be a beginner at something is uncomfortable when you have a huge ego. permalink fedilink source parent [–] lonefighter@sh.itjust.works 116 points 5 hours ago (2 children) What I take from this is "I can't cheat, so I won't play" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] nymnympseudonym@piefed.social 77 points 5 hours ago "I keep losing because this game is TOO SPUPID" permalink fedilink source parent [–] bedwyr@piefed.ca 21 points 5 hours ago (1 child) Oh you can cheat at chess.com. People use engines to suss out the best moves and plug them into their games. Chess.com spots many, but not all of them, you will get notices after the fact that your rating has been changed upwards because they detected them cheating. It's quite common. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] huppakee@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago He is talking about when he was young though permalink fedilink source parent [–] StellarExtract@lemmy.zip 37 points 5 hours ago (1 child) It's written like a deliberate parody of people like him, it's so ludicrous. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SlurpingPus@lemmy.world 1 point 1 hour ago If it's real, it's the first tweet by him I've seen that's actually funny. Perfectly leans into the absurdity of that position. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 4 points 1 hour ago Lol it means he has the same problem with it that I did: there's absolutely no random element to blame so when you lose you just fucking lose and that's all there is to it. The other person's brain just stepped on your brain and wiped it off on the curb. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] socsa@piefed.social 19 points 2 hours ago Wow the most cringe comment possible. Amazing. He keeps doing it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world 25 points 4 hours ago My theory is that he's frustrated that he can't manage a team or pay someone to get better at it for him. The humility it takes to be a beginner at something is uncomfortable when you have a huge ego. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] lonefighter@sh.itjust.works 116 points 5 hours ago (2 children) What I take from this is "I can't cheat, so I won't play" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] nymnympseudonym@piefed.social 77 points 5 hours ago "I keep losing because this game is TOO SPUPID" permalink fedilink source parent [–] bedwyr@piefed.ca 21 points 5 hours ago (1 child) Oh you can cheat at chess.com. People use engines to suss out the best moves and plug them into their games. Chess.com spots many, but not all of them, you will get notices after the fact that your rating has been changed upwards because they detected them cheating. It's quite common. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] huppakee@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago He is talking about when he was young though permalink fedilink source parent
[–] nymnympseudonym@piefed.social 77 points 5 hours ago "I keep losing because this game is TOO SPUPID" permalink fedilink source parent
[–] bedwyr@piefed.ca 21 points 5 hours ago (1 child) Oh you can cheat at chess.com. People use engines to suss out the best moves and plug them into their games. Chess.com spots many, but not all of them, you will get notices after the fact that your rating has been changed upwards because they detected them cheating. It's quite common. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] huppakee@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago He is talking about when he was young though permalink fedilink source parent
[–] huppakee@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago He is talking about when he was young though permalink fedilink source parent
[–] StellarExtract@lemmy.zip 37 points 5 hours ago (1 child) It's written like a deliberate parody of people like him, it's so ludicrous. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SlurpingPus@lemmy.world 1 point 1 hour ago If it's real, it's the first tweet by him I've seen that's actually funny. Perfectly leans into the absurdity of that position. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SlurpingPus@lemmy.world 1 point 1 hour ago If it's real, it's the first tweet by him I've seen that's actually funny. Perfectly leans into the absurdity of that position. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] DandomRude@lemmy.world 56 points 6 hours ago (1 child) I'm pretty sure it's because he can't stand losing. The man clearly suffers from a narcissistic personality disorder. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world 18 points 4 hours ago (1 child) Right? I'm sure he expected to immediately be a god at chess with no studying or practice, then got upset when that wasn't the case. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] DandomRude@lemmy.world 25 points 4 hours ago (1 child) Yes, because of his financial success, he considers himself a genius—which he very obviously never was. This is a common trait among billionaires. Many of them are psychopaths who have amassed their wealth through utter unscrupulousness, irresponsibility in the form of an absurd willingness to take risks, and sheer luck. In the case of Musk, Thiel, and various others, that stroke of luck was PayPal. That company was so successful that it made all of its investors immeasurably rich—it was more a matter of chance that PayPal succeeded, and everything that followed really wasn’t all that difficult because that kind of money cannot lose anymore no matter how ridiculous stupid someone might be. That’s precisely the problem: We only hear about the people who bet everything on one card and won—they’re portrayed as geniuses, which they never were. We never hear anything about all those who failed miserably—and that’s the vast majority. Billionaires aren’t geniuses or even above-average in intelligence. Their financial success has, in the rarest of cases, anything to do with intelligence. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] village604@adultswim.fan 5 points 3 hours ago (2 children) Some of them might be considered marketing geniuses, like Jobs was. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] DandomRude@lemmy.world 7 points 2 hours ago* (3 children) I would rather consider Steve Wozniak than Steve Jobs. Jobs was undoubtedly excellent at selling products, and he was certainly a smart (and also ruthless) businessman, but the pioneer—and the one who actually "did the thing"—was Wozniak. It’s true, of course, that Wozniak probably wouldn’t have been able to make his product a success on his own, but that’s precisely where the problem lies: Bill Gates is certainly no fool either, but DOS—the product that made Microsoft the billion-dollar-company that it is today—was developed by someone else, namely Gary Kildall. Gates’s achievement consisted mainly of making a lot of money from it. He did just that, and did it well, while Kildall was fobbed off with a ridiculously small sum relative to the product’s success, since he was in a weak position at the time. Although Gates was far more technically adept than Jobs, his core qualities were essentially the same—a good sence for business and a utter lack of scruples: Kildall never received a bonus payment from Microsoft for his work that would have even remotely acknowledged his importance. There are many people in the IT sector who are worthy of admiration, but almost none of those who truly deserve it are among those the industry or rather the public celebrates as pioneers or visionaries—these are almost exclusively businesspeople who played only a marginal role, if any, in the development of the products they market. In my view, success stories like Apple or Microsoft are fundamentally no longer possible today, since visionary spirit, wisdom, and inventiveness have been permanently replaced by the inhuman logic of cutthroat capitalism, which the U.S., above all, embodies. Its heroes are always the wrong ones—not those who have advanced humanity through their achievements, but always those who have known how to exploit others particularly ruthlessly for their own ends. These people lead the Western world today, which is why it stands on the brink of total collapse, since these people know nothing but boundless greed. They are utterly unfit to lead millions upon millions of people—yet that is precisely what they seek to do in their pathological hubris. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] village604@adultswim.fan 1 point 45 minutes ago I really think Jobs dying was the start of the tech industry enshittification. While he was a massive cunt and didn't personally develop the products, he pushed his people to innovate, and the rest of the industry followed to try to keep up. Once iPhones became yearly iterative bullshit, the industry followed. But Moore's Law slowing down does come into play. permalink fedilink source parent [–] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 3 points 2 hours ago The thing about The Woz is, he showers. permalink fedilink source parent [–] SlurpingPus@lemmy.world -2 points 1 hour ago (1 child) Did you write that wall of text to say that Wozniak was the marketing genius instead of Jobs? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] village604@adultswim.fan 2 points 43 minutes ago I'm pretty sure they were saying that while Woz was the real genius that made the product, simply making a superior product isn't a guarantee it'll be successful. In reality, you need both people. permalink fedilink source parent [–] huppakee@lemmy.world 4 points 2 hours ago He understood the market and knew what products to put there, I'd say he is a genius at that - but imo a marketing genius would be someone who can sell anything no matter how shitty the product is, so i'd say that term would be better fitting for his competitors at Microsoft for example. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world 18 points 4 hours ago (1 child) Right? I'm sure he expected to immediately be a god at chess with no studying or practice, then got upset when that wasn't the case. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] DandomRude@lemmy.world 25 points 4 hours ago (1 child) Yes, because of his financial success, he considers himself a genius—which he very obviously never was. This is a common trait among billionaires. Many of them are psychopaths who have amassed their wealth through utter unscrupulousness, irresponsibility in the form of an absurd willingness to take risks, and sheer luck. In the case of Musk, Thiel, and various others, that stroke of luck was PayPal. That company was so successful that it made all of its investors immeasurably rich—it was more a matter of chance that PayPal succeeded, and everything that followed really wasn’t all that difficult because that kind of money cannot lose anymore no matter how ridiculous stupid someone might be. That’s precisely the problem: We only hear about the people who bet everything on one card and won—they’re portrayed as geniuses, which they never were. We never hear anything about all those who failed miserably—and that’s the vast majority. Billionaires aren’t geniuses or even above-average in intelligence. Their financial success has, in the rarest of cases, anything to do with intelligence. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] village604@adultswim.fan 5 points 3 hours ago (2 children) Some of them might be considered marketing geniuses, like Jobs was. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] DandomRude@lemmy.world 7 points 2 hours ago* (3 children) I would rather consider Steve Wozniak than Steve Jobs. Jobs was undoubtedly excellent at selling products, and he was certainly a smart (and also ruthless) businessman, but the pioneer—and the one who actually "did the thing"—was Wozniak. It’s true, of course, that Wozniak probably wouldn’t have been able to make his product a success on his own, but that’s precisely where the problem lies: Bill Gates is certainly no fool either, but DOS—the product that made Microsoft the billion-dollar-company that it is today—was developed by someone else, namely Gary Kildall. Gates’s achievement consisted mainly of making a lot of money from it. He did just that, and did it well, while Kildall was fobbed off with a ridiculously small sum relative to the product’s success, since he was in a weak position at the time. Although Gates was far more technically adept than Jobs, his core qualities were essentially the same—a good sence for business and a utter lack of scruples: Kildall never received a bonus payment from Microsoft for his work that would have even remotely acknowledged his importance. There are many people in the IT sector who are worthy of admiration, but almost none of those who truly deserve it are among those the industry or rather the public celebrates as pioneers or visionaries—these are almost exclusively businesspeople who played only a marginal role, if any, in the development of the products they market. In my view, success stories like Apple or Microsoft are fundamentally no longer possible today, since visionary spirit, wisdom, and inventiveness have been permanently replaced by the inhuman logic of cutthroat capitalism, which the U.S., above all, embodies. Its heroes are always the wrong ones—not those who have advanced humanity through their achievements, but always those who have known how to exploit others particularly ruthlessly for their own ends. These people lead the Western world today, which is why it stands on the brink of total collapse, since these people know nothing but boundless greed. They are utterly unfit to lead millions upon millions of people—yet that is precisely what they seek to do in their pathological hubris. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] village604@adultswim.fan 1 point 45 minutes ago I really think Jobs dying was the start of the tech industry enshittification. While he was a massive cunt and didn't personally develop the products, he pushed his people to innovate, and the rest of the industry followed to try to keep up. Once iPhones became yearly iterative bullshit, the industry followed. But Moore's Law slowing down does come into play. permalink fedilink source parent [–] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 3 points 2 hours ago The thing about The Woz is, he showers. permalink fedilink source parent [–] SlurpingPus@lemmy.world -2 points 1 hour ago (1 child) Did you write that wall of text to say that Wozniak was the marketing genius instead of Jobs? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] village604@adultswim.fan 2 points 43 minutes ago I'm pretty sure they were saying that while Woz was the real genius that made the product, simply making a superior product isn't a guarantee it'll be successful. In reality, you need both people. permalink fedilink source parent [–] huppakee@lemmy.world 4 points 2 hours ago He understood the market and knew what products to put there, I'd say he is a genius at that - but imo a marketing genius would be someone who can sell anything no matter how shitty the product is, so i'd say that term would be better fitting for his competitors at Microsoft for example. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] DandomRude@lemmy.world 25 points 4 hours ago (1 child) Yes, because of his financial success, he considers himself a genius—which he very obviously never was. This is a common trait among billionaires. Many of them are psychopaths who have amassed their wealth through utter unscrupulousness, irresponsibility in the form of an absurd willingness to take risks, and sheer luck. In the case of Musk, Thiel, and various others, that stroke of luck was PayPal. That company was so successful that it made all of its investors immeasurably rich—it was more a matter of chance that PayPal succeeded, and everything that followed really wasn’t all that difficult because that kind of money cannot lose anymore no matter how ridiculous stupid someone might be. That’s precisely the problem: We only hear about the people who bet everything on one card and won—they’re portrayed as geniuses, which they never were. We never hear anything about all those who failed miserably—and that’s the vast majority. Billionaires aren’t geniuses or even above-average in intelligence. Their financial success has, in the rarest of cases, anything to do with intelligence. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] village604@adultswim.fan 5 points 3 hours ago (2 children) Some of them might be considered marketing geniuses, like Jobs was. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] DandomRude@lemmy.world 7 points 2 hours ago* (3 children) I would rather consider Steve Wozniak than Steve Jobs. Jobs was undoubtedly excellent at selling products, and he was certainly a smart (and also ruthless) businessman, but the pioneer—and the one who actually "did the thing"—was Wozniak. It’s true, of course, that Wozniak probably wouldn’t have been able to make his product a success on his own, but that’s precisely where the problem lies: Bill Gates is certainly no fool either, but DOS—the product that made Microsoft the billion-dollar-company that it is today—was developed by someone else, namely Gary Kildall. Gates’s achievement consisted mainly of making a lot of money from it. He did just that, and did it well, while Kildall was fobbed off with a ridiculously small sum relative to the product’s success, since he was in a weak position at the time. Although Gates was far more technically adept than Jobs, his core qualities were essentially the same—a good sence for business and a utter lack of scruples: Kildall never received a bonus payment from Microsoft for his work that would have even remotely acknowledged his importance. There are many people in the IT sector who are worthy of admiration, but almost none of those who truly deserve it are among those the industry or rather the public celebrates as pioneers or visionaries—these are almost exclusively businesspeople who played only a marginal role, if any, in the development of the products they market. In my view, success stories like Apple or Microsoft are fundamentally no longer possible today, since visionary spirit, wisdom, and inventiveness have been permanently replaced by the inhuman logic of cutthroat capitalism, which the U.S., above all, embodies. Its heroes are always the wrong ones—not those who have advanced humanity through their achievements, but always those who have known how to exploit others particularly ruthlessly for their own ends. These people lead the Western world today, which is why it stands on the brink of total collapse, since these people know nothing but boundless greed. They are utterly unfit to lead millions upon millions of people—yet that is precisely what they seek to do in their pathological hubris. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] village604@adultswim.fan 1 point 45 minutes ago I really think Jobs dying was the start of the tech industry enshittification. While he was a massive cunt and didn't personally develop the products, he pushed his people to innovate, and the rest of the industry followed to try to keep up. Once iPhones became yearly iterative bullshit, the industry followed. But Moore's Law slowing down does come into play. permalink fedilink source parent [–] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 3 points 2 hours ago The thing about The Woz is, he showers. permalink fedilink source parent [–] SlurpingPus@lemmy.world -2 points 1 hour ago (1 child) Did you write that wall of text to say that Wozniak was the marketing genius instead of Jobs? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] village604@adultswim.fan 2 points 43 minutes ago I'm pretty sure they were saying that while Woz was the real genius that made the product, simply making a superior product isn't a guarantee it'll be successful. In reality, you need both people. permalink fedilink source parent [–] huppakee@lemmy.world 4 points 2 hours ago He understood the market and knew what products to put there, I'd say he is a genius at that - but imo a marketing genius would be someone who can sell anything no matter how shitty the product is, so i'd say that term would be better fitting for his competitors at Microsoft for example. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] village604@adultswim.fan 5 points 3 hours ago (2 children) Some of them might be considered marketing geniuses, like Jobs was. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] DandomRude@lemmy.world 7 points 2 hours ago* (3 children) I would rather consider Steve Wozniak than Steve Jobs. Jobs was undoubtedly excellent at selling products, and he was certainly a smart (and also ruthless) businessman, but the pioneer—and the one who actually "did the thing"—was Wozniak. It’s true, of course, that Wozniak probably wouldn’t have been able to make his product a success on his own, but that’s precisely where the problem lies: Bill Gates is certainly no fool either, but DOS—the product that made Microsoft the billion-dollar-company that it is today—was developed by someone else, namely Gary Kildall. Gates’s achievement consisted mainly of making a lot of money from it. He did just that, and did it well, while Kildall was fobbed off with a ridiculously small sum relative to the product’s success, since he was in a weak position at the time. Although Gates was far more technically adept than Jobs, his core qualities were essentially the same—a good sence for business and a utter lack of scruples: Kildall never received a bonus payment from Microsoft for his work that would have even remotely acknowledged his importance. There are many people in the IT sector who are worthy of admiration, but almost none of those who truly deserve it are among those the industry or rather the public celebrates as pioneers or visionaries—these are almost exclusively businesspeople who played only a marginal role, if any, in the development of the products they market. In my view, success stories like Apple or Microsoft are fundamentally no longer possible today, since visionary spirit, wisdom, and inventiveness have been permanently replaced by the inhuman logic of cutthroat capitalism, which the U.S., above all, embodies. Its heroes are always the wrong ones—not those who have advanced humanity through their achievements, but always those who have known how to exploit others particularly ruthlessly for their own ends. These people lead the Western world today, which is why it stands on the brink of total collapse, since these people know nothing but boundless greed. They are utterly unfit to lead millions upon millions of people—yet that is precisely what they seek to do in their pathological hubris. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] village604@adultswim.fan 1 point 45 minutes ago I really think Jobs dying was the start of the tech industry enshittification. While he was a massive cunt and didn't personally develop the products, he pushed his people to innovate, and the rest of the industry followed to try to keep up. Once iPhones became yearly iterative bullshit, the industry followed. But Moore's Law slowing down does come into play. permalink fedilink source parent [–] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 3 points 2 hours ago The thing about The Woz is, he showers. permalink fedilink source parent [–] SlurpingPus@lemmy.world -2 points 1 hour ago (1 child) Did you write that wall of text to say that Wozniak was the marketing genius instead of Jobs? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] village604@adultswim.fan 2 points 43 minutes ago I'm pretty sure they were saying that while Woz was the real genius that made the product, simply making a superior product isn't a guarantee it'll be successful. In reality, you need both people. permalink fedilink source parent [–] huppakee@lemmy.world 4 points 2 hours ago He understood the market and knew what products to put there, I'd say he is a genius at that - but imo a marketing genius would be someone who can sell anything no matter how shitty the product is, so i'd say that term would be better fitting for his competitors at Microsoft for example. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] DandomRude@lemmy.world 7 points 2 hours ago* (3 children) I would rather consider Steve Wozniak than Steve Jobs. Jobs was undoubtedly excellent at selling products, and he was certainly a smart (and also ruthless) businessman, but the pioneer—and the one who actually "did the thing"—was Wozniak. It’s true, of course, that Wozniak probably wouldn’t have been able to make his product a success on his own, but that’s precisely where the problem lies: Bill Gates is certainly no fool either, but DOS—the product that made Microsoft the billion-dollar-company that it is today—was developed by someone else, namely Gary Kildall. Gates’s achievement consisted mainly of making a lot of money from it. He did just that, and did it well, while Kildall was fobbed off with a ridiculously small sum relative to the product’s success, since he was in a weak position at the time. Although Gates was far more technically adept than Jobs, his core qualities were essentially the same—a good sence for business and a utter lack of scruples: Kildall never received a bonus payment from Microsoft for his work that would have even remotely acknowledged his importance. There are many people in the IT sector who are worthy of admiration, but almost none of those who truly deserve it are among those the industry or rather the public celebrates as pioneers or visionaries—these are almost exclusively businesspeople who played only a marginal role, if any, in the development of the products they market. In my view, success stories like Apple or Microsoft are fundamentally no longer possible today, since visionary spirit, wisdom, and inventiveness have been permanently replaced by the inhuman logic of cutthroat capitalism, which the U.S., above all, embodies. Its heroes are always the wrong ones—not those who have advanced humanity through their achievements, but always those who have known how to exploit others particularly ruthlessly for their own ends. These people lead the Western world today, which is why it stands on the brink of total collapse, since these people know nothing but boundless greed. They are utterly unfit to lead millions upon millions of people—yet that is precisely what they seek to do in their pathological hubris. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] village604@adultswim.fan 1 point 45 minutes ago I really think Jobs dying was the start of the tech industry enshittification. While he was a massive cunt and didn't personally develop the products, he pushed his people to innovate, and the rest of the industry followed to try to keep up. Once iPhones became yearly iterative bullshit, the industry followed. But Moore's Law slowing down does come into play. permalink fedilink source parent [–] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 3 points 2 hours ago The thing about The Woz is, he showers. permalink fedilink source parent [–] SlurpingPus@lemmy.world -2 points 1 hour ago (1 child) Did you write that wall of text to say that Wozniak was the marketing genius instead of Jobs? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] village604@adultswim.fan 2 points 43 minutes ago I'm pretty sure they were saying that while Woz was the real genius that made the product, simply making a superior product isn't a guarantee it'll be successful. In reality, you need both people. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] village604@adultswim.fan 1 point 45 minutes ago I really think Jobs dying was the start of the tech industry enshittification. While he was a massive cunt and didn't personally develop the products, he pushed his people to innovate, and the rest of the industry followed to try to keep up. Once iPhones became yearly iterative bullshit, the industry followed. But Moore's Law slowing down does come into play. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 3 points 2 hours ago The thing about The Woz is, he showers. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SlurpingPus@lemmy.world -2 points 1 hour ago (1 child) Did you write that wall of text to say that Wozniak was the marketing genius instead of Jobs? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] village604@adultswim.fan 2 points 43 minutes ago I'm pretty sure they were saying that while Woz was the real genius that made the product, simply making a superior product isn't a guarantee it'll be successful. In reality, you need both people. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] village604@adultswim.fan 2 points 43 minutes ago I'm pretty sure they were saying that while Woz was the real genius that made the product, simply making a superior product isn't a guarantee it'll be successful. In reality, you need both people. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] huppakee@lemmy.world 4 points 2 hours ago He understood the market and knew what products to put there, I'd say he is a genius at that - but imo a marketing genius would be someone who can sell anything no matter how shitty the product is, so i'd say that term would be better fitting for his competitors at Microsoft for example. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] red_tomato@lemmy.world 4 points 4 hours ago Can’t lose to chess if you refuse to play it permalink fedilink source parent