Ha. That's the most outlandish part of the plot. In terms of enforcement and control, Black Mirror's Metalhead episode seems the more likely vision, where the robotic dogs are comparable to drones.
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned how these days having a tattoo, no matter which, is a potential one-way ticket to a prison in El Salvador. That's a very good reason to having them removed.
That only applies to non-citizens, like Garcia, and I don't think his MS-13 tattoos were the reason for his removal, he was sent home because he was here illegally and had prior charges (such as beating his wife)
I was tempted to stop reading after the shark attack story when she wakes up in the hospital and declares "I saved myself". Ugh. But I think it makes narrative sense: why would a good person stay at the company after all she has witnessed? It also makes the company leaders seem so much worse in comparison.
One more thing: Is it credible that she had such a high profile job for so long and still be worried about money?
> One more thing: Is it credible that she had such a high profile job for so long and still be worried about money?
Read threads at bogleheads for a month or so. The eighth post that is a variation on "we have fifteen million dollars in cash, and more in stock, can we afford to buy a used 2008 Accord" and you'll go insane.
> why would a good person stay at the company after all she has witnessed?
Wait, is the angle of the book that she’s a good person? That can’t possibly be right… it’s a book about all the horrible things she tried to help Facebook do.
The title of the book doesn’t suggest she was disappointed in their morals. It suggests she was disappointed in their ability to do their jobs.
> Wait, is the angle of the book that she’s a good person? That can’t possibly be right…
Well, she paints herself as an idealist who believes Facebook can be an agent of [presumably positive] change, so at least she thinks of herself as good in some sense of the word. That’s what I found intriguing about that shark attack prologue. If it had been written by a third person or if this were a novelization, it would feel like a character-revealing moment, telling the audience that she’s actually selfish and self-absorbed, and setting expectations for her behavior before getting into the story.
As a kid she was attacked by a shark. Parents took her to a local doctor who sewed up the wound. Turned out her bowel was punctured and she was going septic. Started complaining to her parents that she was feeling worse and worse. Parents brush her off and say to get some rest. Next morning she’s nearly dead, parents freak out, and rush her back to the doctor and eventually get her helicoptered to a real hospital. Surgeons clean everything up, she wakes up and mom says, “The doctors saved you.” And she goes, “No, I saved myself.”
I find the narrator to be trying really hard to make the Facebook/Meta people look bad and in a lot of those cases she herself just comes across as bad at her own job.
Many times its easier to look back over a period of time and see the differences than when you are gradually exposed to those things over time. Thats kind of how I'm understanding her recollection about it all. I do tend to take things with a grain of salt, not all Americans are as ridiculous as some of the people she makes us out to sound like. She does paint broadly with the "international community is all good and Americans are all morons" brush, again grain of salt.
About the money thing, I think she was probably compensated better at some point, probably when she was more involved with sandberg and zuck. But also sounds like she was working constantly so she may not have had time to worry about it or worry about spending it. I'm only ~20 chapters in, when they move to MP.
Overall I like the author/narrator, we all tell our stories from our perspective and I just keep that in mind.
Just recently I had to code a little but complex animation and I ended up using the web animations API. It's nice, it was a lot less code than the css counterpart.
But, if I* have to write this same animation in two years and @property is widely available, I'll reach up for that first.
*To be honest, it will be 100% an LLM that writes it for me.
Well, one could be faily musically inclined and never have listened to "despacito" on the height of its fame.
And I think that in this case,the critic was kind of a dick in his critic. In a very knowledgeable and eloquent manner he implies that if (from his perspective) the painter is not very good nor the art he produces, then the only explanation is that all the people who enjoys his art are gullible simpletons who don't know art. He has every right to have this opinion, of course, but he shouldn't be surprised if the gullible simpletons in question loudly disagree.
