Yes, actually despite claiming to be volunteers, mods of large communities on reddit are frequently offered decent sums of money for going along with shilling/advertising. That’s why many tried to become mods of hundreds of major subs, not for “power”.
I mean the default subs that have millions of subscribers. Your subs look great topic-wise, but they have like 50 people so I don't think you're going to get ad offers yet.
Most people don’t run into any issues with mods online. If you’re constantly running into “asshole” authority figures in online communities it might be you…
Try to open a controversial topic, let’s say CCP or other heated sub reddit, Even when non political, mods straight power tripping when you ask serious questions.
But I think this is a reference for an old thread of “my wife think being a mod is not a real job”
Nah reddit mods are actually awful. I would tend to agree with you if it were a bunch of random mod teams but reddit is almost entirely controlled by a small group of powermods who get off on flexing their minute amount of power on an internet discussion forum. Truly awful people who contribute nothing to society by taking over small communities so they can use their power to indiscriminately ban people they disagree with.
The only incentive to become a reddit powermod is power.
Sometimes, sure. But with ~15 years on reddit I have run into some power-tripping mods before... /r/portland, for example - I mainly agree with their politics but when I didn't they'd delete all of my posts and then shadowban me. Not allowed to disagree.
That depends most startups are shit and fail but they still are useful. But the idea is VCs will just fund thousands of startups in hopes one is a unicorn and actually has a product worth selling.
But the founder is expected to use capital they don’t have to fund the business until it is attractive to people with capital. They are expected to market the product without marketing experience. They are expected to negotiate with people who are negotiating from a position of strength and who has much more experience. They are expected to be personally attractive to get interest from VCs. After they have gotten traction they are expected to be “coachable” and follow the advice of advisors that up until now have not been involved in the growth of the company.
The ecosystem is broken. Founders rarely get funding and when they do they end up losing most of the business they built. VCs are getting very few positive results.
If big VC firms were losing money in terms of net total they wouldn’t exist. Albeit most of them define success as being acquired by a big company like Google. As for independent VCs most of them are probably wasting heaps of money and just following the hype.
They’ve largely subverted the occasionally useful profession of journalism. There’s a big difference between researching things your audience wants to know, and asking someone with a commercial agenda what they’d like to tell your audience.
Therapists used to be the most helpful thing in the world (or so I’ve heard), now they’re so unhelpful they have to rely on the state to get us to use them and have so many different indie-based projects and programs competing with them, like BetterTherapy (which isn’t bad tbh). The old joke is they’re paid friends but now I see they’re just paid, you could be in a genuine situation where something obliterates the quality of your life (e.g. custody battles) and they’ll be like “does lithium sound good” (which by the way, lithium is outdated by two thousand years, so if it’s recommended right away to you, run). The reason they’re not set up like lawyers where you only pay them “if you win” is because they know this would destroy them.
I fear the medical profession is also going down this path.
Government and lawsuits are totally regulating everyone to death. Doctors used to be knowledgeable and creative (and they still are) and had the freedom to prescribe whatever they thought would be the best.
Now, they can only follow conventional wisdom and the exact recommendations of the regulators. If they deviate just a little to find the perfect fit for your case, they risk themselves and their livelihoods.
It’s primarily private insurance (at least in the US) that drives that. The doctor can prescribe something and then a “doctor” who works for the insurance company can take a 10 second look at it and deny it outright in favor of a more profitable treatment.
When it comes to costs, yes, but there is also another angle.
Sometimes doctors will prescribe expensive, patented drugs when cheaper, better, out-of-patent alternatives exist.
This is not to the benefit of the insurance companies.
Rather the pharma industry and regulators act in a concentrated rap battle: the regulator covers their ass by only approving in accordance with the latest, most comprehensive studies (“evidence based practice”) and the pharma industry only bankrolls new studies on their most profitable medications.
Yeah because we would definitely be motivated to manufacture fucking Hellfire missiles and landmines without the pressures of global capitalism… /s
Like I get it, getting rid of the defense industry ≠ getting rid of war, but it would be a much more daunting task to wage war if we didn’t have fucking weapons factories.
Some local governments have rules that X must be done by someone in that area. Usually the mayor’s nephew. To get around it they are made into a rep for the company that does the actual work. No value whatsoever to the project, the users, or the taxpayer.
Add comment