But lots of presentations, including this one I think, are merely used as a means of conveying information (yeah, not my favorite way of doing so, but being a contrarian doesn't do anybody's career any good), and those are indeed intended to be read and need to have explicitly all the information that you otherwise would be speaking and addressing.

I think this is the biggest hurdle for US style management produced from the MBA cookie factories. Their only skill sets are MBA speak, assigning blame, taking credit and granting themselves the largest bonuses possible while telling all the actual workers generating value that "due to current financial conditions, your raise is limited to 2%"

There is always some poor or corrupt country willing to ignore consequences as long as they can make a buck. The profits are private, but costs and consequences always laid onto the public. Miserable way to run things.

However, the consequences are always applied to everyone but the executives and board.

They'd love to talk about problems, investigate them from all angles, make plans on how to plan to solve the problem, identify who caused it or how to blame for it, quantify how much it costs us or how much money we could make from solving it, everything and anything except actually doing something about it.

It was never about doing the thing.

We the people are responsible for the government we get.

Don't like the consequences? Make better voting choices next time.

Speed of typing code is not all that different than the speed of typing English, even accounting for the volume expansion of English -> . And then, of course, there is the new extra cost of then reading and understanding whatever code the AI wrote.

But seems some prefer to believe a theoretical argument with no evidence to back it up.

“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”

For example, while the Phoebus cartel only really lasted from 1925 through to 1939, 1000hr incandescent light bulbs remain the standard offering till present day. Profitable market manipulations are sticky.

The whole notion that markets are efficient is just a mathematical construct that has become very dogmatic for people. But if you look into the details, markets are efficient under the assumptions of perfect information and infinite time. Neither of those conditions are present in the real world: we neither have perfect information nor infinite time.

So it is a highly asymmetric bargaining situation where all the incentives are poorly aligned. Of course it is exploitative.

The people up in the clouds think they have a full understanding of what the software is supposed to be, that they "own" the entire intent and specification in a few ambiguously worded requirements and some loose constraints and, being generous, a very incomplete understanding of the system dependencies. They see software teams as an expensive cost center, not as true the source of all their wealth and power.

The art of turning that into an actual software product is what good software teams do; I haven't yet seen anything that can automate that process away or even help all that much.

But the truth is most modern products aren't good enough to earn word of mouth.

A good example of how to work it right is Steam: while it is not perfect, most discussions give them benefit of doubt because most of the time they do work for the best interest of their customers, not just themselves.

Because all the trends seem to indicate that to make a living people are working longer hours, holding multiple concurrent jobs (eg https://gameofjobs.org/are-americans-now-more-likely-than-ev...), and holding off retirement.