Salesforce runs on Salesforce because they can afford to pay for a massive fucking ops team.

The issue with SF is that it's clunky as fuck and needs an entire team to properly set it up. Once you use it for 1-2 years without proper setups and hierarchies, it's nearly impossible to fix without tearing it down to 0, which companies cannot afford to do.

Most tech companies just don't need that level of complexity. The ones that do are typically large enough to pay for sizeable ops teams. I prefer Hubspot because it's easy as fuck to use and you can easily tie everything from marketing to sales to CS, in one place.

Using SF for most companies is the equivalent of using a Bugatti for your daily commute. Might sound nice and look like a dream to have something so powerful, but it's expensive as all hell, you're constantly paying for more than you need, and you need super specialized people to fix it when it's broken.

Salesforce CEO says he took a 10-day 'digital detox' trip to French Polynesia in the wake of company layoffs

One thing I've noticed with conservatives is what a strange grasp on reality they have. They mostly feel reality is just a matter of who is "in charge".

It doesn't matter if something is measurably and provably true, when they're in charge they will simply state that it's not true, and it won't be.

This tendency is at the center of most conservative utopian fiction. Fixing the problems of the world doesn't involve doing anything at all about the problems, but instead murdering everyone who talks about the problems. As if it's the thoughts of the people talking about these problems which manifest those problems into existence.

Musk has gotten to a place where he is "in charge" of essentially everything around him. And so he is entitled to dictate reality to suit his needs. Everyone below him in his hierarchy is obligated to oblige him and together they'll make it real.

Pathetic

People don’t realize that these billionaires all started their companies at the ideal time. They’re pioneers taking advantage of unique conditions that don’t exist anymore. They’re not ‘geniuses’ - just people who managed to be first in certain industries when there was almost no competition.

Expecting to become as rich as this without having the same business conditions as the dot com boom or similar is just wishful thinking.

America’s False Idols | Today’s tech billionaires think they’re self-made geniuses who deserve veneration. But we don’t have to believe that

Read the smartest guys in the room. Enron had a somewhat similar issue.

The people making these decisions have their pay check/bonus decided on however much theoretical value they could book immediately. Enron would book the theoretical profits from any deal immediately and the deal maker would get bonuses based on theoretical profit, there was no incentive to actually see the deal through until the end as that would take time away from the next deal and the next bonus. The person you were arguing with either had a structure like this or took orders from somebody that did. It didn’t matter that in the long run it would cost the company more because for that one quarter they cut packing spending by 10% and get a bonus based off of the money “saved”.

‘Enshittification’ is coming for absolutely everything

Nope. I've worked in a bunch of different domains and every single one suffers from sales people or product owners saying whatever the hell is necessary to get someone to say yes.

By the time people figure it out, the bonus check has been cashed and spent, and engineering has to figure out how to keep the client happy, lest the loss ends up on their balance sheet and not sales.

Robotics Software Engineering is a disappointing domain.

Not necessarily, C-suite staff have a lot more leeway to negotiate their contracts compared to low-level ICs. That's where golden parachutes come from - a corporation really wants a certain exec and that exec writes in a bunch of nice perks in their contract. Rules for thee, absolute discretion and freedom for me.

Sanity Check When Leadership Says We Can't Compete

Now, in an ideal world, this would lead to an increase in leisure and personal time. People would have a better work-life balance, and they could explore new hobbies or interests.

In the world we live in, this will lower the number of paying jobs driving down wages and increasing the wealth divide.

AI systems like ChatGPT could impact 300 million full-time jobs worldwide, with administrative and legal roles some of the most at risk, Goldman Sachs report says

Musk isn't "self made" or an inventor/scientist. He is a spoiled rich kid with massive insecurities obvious to all.

He, and all the others that made millions in the tech sphere, were at the right place, at the right time and had enough resources to make their bets. They had insider knowledge and ready made networks.

But they will never admit the system is beyond tilted in their favour. They all think they are John Galt.

After he publicly mocked a disabled employee who was laid off, Musk backtracks and apologizes after he figures out a $100M deal Twitter made with the employee requires full payment upon termination

Never trust wealth or power. Their interests are inherently different than the rest of us. Most that make it to that level are some form of sociopath, but not all. Even for the ones that aren't, that level of wealth absolutely will skew one's perception of reality. This is why I am always wary of these people.

Salesforce CEO says he took a 10-day 'digital detox' trip to French Polynesia in the wake of company layoffs

No matter what they tell you it's a people problem.

Any methodology works mostly as well as the people implementing it. Are they doing it seriously, or just box-ticking, or trying to cater to delusions of senior managers. Waterfall done well is better than Agile done badly. Whatever replaces Agile will have the same problems.

Is Agile actually dying