Depends on your industry I guess. My personal experience is that small-to-medium companies ask for SSO, large and enterprise _require_ it.

I don't understand your question, are you asking what's the financial incentive to AI-generate thousands of podcasts a week? Isn't it obviously the income from streams and/or ads?

> People would immediately jump on the route I was on after seeing I struggled. Cool flex.

I find it highly strange to assume malicious intent ("flexing"), rather than charitable one (they're just interested in this route regardless of you being on it, or your attempt made this route seem fun/interesting and made them want to try it for themselves).

People seem to assume bad intent all the time when there's obvious equally-or-more-likely charitable explanations, to the point that I wonder if it's me who's naive.

> it's kind of odd how nowadays everyone goes to the gym. Growing up as a late-stage millenial, gym goers were a niche subculture

Let's not make it a generalisation. The US and UK are big into the gym thing, not every country is. I remember seeing some data that ~25% of people in the UK (maybe a slice of population, eg 18-30yo, can't remember) were regular gym-goers against 8% in France.

Reducing every personal reason to oppose every specific project to "NIMBY" is not nuance.

They specific example GP gave was locals being opposed to something. That is textbook nimbyism.

Happy for other examples that would demonstrate nuance, but that isn't it.

That would be part of it for sure.

Locally there is opposition to gold mining. People in the region oppose it and with a broad definition of ‘NIMBY’ you’d be right. But neighbouring valley, town, region etc is a broad definition.

Do any of those people have gold jewellery or gold-plated contacts on their electronics?

Well, pretty sure that VCs are more interested in popularity than in quality so maybe it's not such a bad metric for them.

Yes, you're right, but popularity becomes fleeting without real quality behind the projects.

Hype helps raise funds, of course, and sells, of course.

But it doesn't necessarily lead to long-term sustainability of investments.

> So did France. There is a common factor at play with Russia. Has little to do with the country's shape.

You'll have to make yourself clearer, I have no idea what you're implying

I implied that when a nation decides that transport infrastructure is a strategic investment, a decades long initiative, funded by the Public sector, it yields better results.

The private sector unfortunately is too short sighted, and will optimize for profit. Doesn't seem to work well for nationwide infrastructure..that being railroads, but also the internet.

> It had no expiration date

- non-legally speaking, consent for anything is never illimited in time. So whatever the law says, you're probably doing a dick move, I'm sure you can conceive that most people you're going to email would rather not get this email and you're planning to do it anyway. So if you act against these people's interest, don't be surprised if they react negatively (reporting the email as spam, complaining, reporting you to authorities)

- legally speaking... IANAL, but I don't think that you're correct that you have a legal basis to have kept this data, and even less to use it for marketing purposes. I don't think that you'd win the argument that the consent is still "informed" after many years of not hearing from you. If a reasonable person would no longer expect to hear from this company, then I don't think you still have consent under GDPR (could be wrong, IANAL)

So basically — you are affirming the point of the OP whose article was shared.

Wait too long — respect people’s attention and time so much that you don’t send them anything unless it is ready and benefits them - and apparently it’s spam when you finally do contact them. Meanwhile, if you were just drip feeding them slop once a month, then you’re fine.

I happen to agree with the article author, the email ecosystem is totally broken, that’s far more of a problem than small teams who have well-meaning intentions and respect for their users’ time. You’re blaming the victim, rather than the email system that’s open to SPAM and dominated by gmail.

That's a shallow analysis. These reasons (which are very reasonable) aren't inherently gendered, yet don't seem to deter women as they make up something like 80-90% of these jobs, they're not "just not interested".

So... seems like gender _does_ have something to do with that? Maybe just maybe more women gravitate towards these roles because these roles are associated with traditionally-feminine values (care, empathy, nurture)?

Maybe you're "just not interested" because as a man, you've been educated with traditionally-masculine values (strength? protection? power?), and if you had grown up in an environment where these roles are associated to these values, you'd be potentially-interested in them despite their obvious downsides

Men are also often the primary breadwinners in families, so they feel the need to take a higher paying job. In families where the husband's job pays well, the wife's career can be decided by personal fulfillment. Teachers are respected (but not paid well), nurses are respected and can earn a good amount, and social work is a very self-fulfilling role (I don't think society holds them in esteem more than other professionals).

If we want men to take up certain roles, we need to pay more. That's the simplicity of capitalism and free markets. We bend ourselves into knots trying to find clever and (maybe) cheaper solutions to thorny problems.

> If we want men to take up certain roles, we need to pay more.

Why is it only now, when employment rates are seemingly a problem for men, that we need to pay more in these professions to attract men that might otherwise not have considered them? Why shouldn't we have paid more earlier?

The framing of the article and discussion around it is a little bizarre to me because it ignores the decades or longer of (American) society effectively pushing women into industries like education or nursing and subsequently devaluing them.

I don't quite understand why society has to step in and try to fix this for men who are feeling insecure about their job options while simultaneously actively avoiding trying to help women and minorities.

Teachers paid well in some places, I checked it recently and in our school district(Seattle area) on average elementary school teacher makes 120-140k.

I don't think you should be downvoted: the article talks about this (kind of). It says there's a need of "framing jobs as more masculine" by eg emphasizing the physicality of them: making job names more masculine is totally in line with this (whether this "masculinisation" is the right solution is very debatable of course)