I'm arguing that if you're on a downward trajectory and your primary strategy is layoffs and cutting expenses, rather than investing, you're not going to recover.

My personal experience with working for such companies is that it leads to a death spiral, but I recognize my sample size is small.

After all, the documents/emails/presentations will cover the most common use cases. But we have databases that have all the questions the RAG might be asked, far more answers than that which live in documents.

>The United States has added almost 5 million housing units since 2020, most heavily in the South and most of them single-family homes, making a housing shortage look conquerable in much of the nation.

https://washingtonstatestandard.com/2024/05/16/housing-boom-....

You could really generalize and say this is about relationships in general. If people leave interactions with you feeling good about themself, it will be a relationship they want to continue and grow.

And the ratio of good interactions to bad needs to be at least 5X (at least that's what the Gottman Institute found with romantic relationships)

It's easy to measure short-term impact (we cut a bunch of people, we're saving money, we're more profitable) but it's very hard to measure the medium to long term impact of these cuts.

Note I'm not arguing these cuts are the wrong strategy, I'm arguing they have absolutely no clue.

Same situation here. Of course it's happened, some people have taken advantage of remote work. So what's the manager's excuse for not catching this?

It's difficult to learn and use? Compared to what? The "difficult to extend" might be accurate, but I really question the initial premise here.

I was there right before the pandemic and there were a decent number of visitors (given that it was a weekday afternoon).

But the fact is that most museums rely, in least in part, on grants and benefactors in addition to visitors.