> We're left to guess what this means. What's work around the work? If that work is now unsavory, why can't they work on work rather than around it? Is this describing reducing the management layer? (support) or customer/partner support? Will they be replaced by automation? I get you don't want to go into specifics of who's let go, but then don't pretend you're providing a clear analysis, and don't give a washed out business lingo salad instead.
> TBH I don't see what changed on Spotify for a customer perspective in the past few years. I still see bugs I reported years ago, the UI is largely the same.
He didn't get into it because you answered it yourself. And anyone who has used it for a while has most likely the same initial thought.
It used to provide some limited banking services up until the 60s and it still does billions of dollars worth of money orders a year so a lot of the infrastructure is still there.
> It's an interesting (and scary/depressing) subject to think about - what proportion of people would or wouldn't find that acceptable in even more extreme circumstance?
"Right side of history" isn't used just to sound cool. It's to embolden opinions like his. Same with the description of "just a bunch of old white men".
No idea how true it is, but I overheard someone on a flight say that whenever you feel a real sudden jolt on a plan it's really only moving like 2-3ft.
Jassy and Zuckerberg have both said that new employees (even experienced hires) are underperforming compared the workers who were in an office setting at some point. With a couple of years of turnover, that can compound quite a bit.
Thinking back to when I started working, I somewhat buy that. I would have had a much harder time getting up to speed (both technically and institutionally) in a remote environment, where the barriers to learning from your peers are higher and the feedback processes (especially in a company formed around in-person work) are slower.
Because you could have gotten married, been blinded, and started a business grossing $900k but only netting $100k a year and they would know none of that outside of a couple of 1099s.
What they did for you though is look at your return, and saw you didn't declare investment income that they knew about from a 1099.
But your point is wrong. In 87% of the cases, the IRS does have all the information. Even if you have donations or other deductions it doesn't matter, because 87% of people take the standard deduction since it's more than their itemized deductions.
And marriage and death records are public, as are probate. So they would have all of that too.
That's not what they said at all. Most people are not changing marital status or starting businesses every year.
The IRS could send a tax bill for what they do know, with an option to agree that is all you owe and pay, or an option that you will need to file the taxes yourself because they are missing information.
For the vast majority of Americans, option 1 will cover them.
I think it’s likely the IRS uses some kind of database of US vital statistics (including marriages) as part of efforts to detect tax fraud. Other federal agencies do, eg the State Department’s passport office uses a proprietary database called EVVE of birth and death data. [0]
Sure, but couldn't that be done on a case-by-case basis, and the fed just sends you a refund/bill at the end of the year that you're responsible for amending?
I'm not saying a company like Intuit adds zero utility, I'm just saying that I think a lot of taxes are simple enough to where it would be relatively easy to just give people a default thing. If the IRS gets something wrong, or is missing some info, then I think a software like TurboTax makes a lot of sense, but isn't that much more of an edge case? Fundamentally, the complexity of my taxes didn't really change in the last five years.
When the 1040EZ was a thing, only 16% of filers used it. Those would be the candidates who could safely have the IRS do their return. With anyone else, there's all kinds of information the IRS has no clue about.
Most people don't use the EZ because even the most common deductions (that the IRS knows about, like your mortgage and state taxes and your stock investments through a firm, etc.) couldn't be put on there.
But the IRS still knows about them.
Also they could put a website where you could spend five minutes entering the most common information they don't already know, and then spit out your bill.
It's not that hard. Most filers situations aren't that complicated.
>Also they could put a website where you could spend five minutes entering the most common information they don't already know, and then spit out your bill.
It's not and 99% of the time it's blatant user error. Like the guys top post that is refusing to believe his father slammed the re-subscribe button when sharing his account with him.
The example from the top post sure I may give some leeway, but there are plenty of subscription services where it is clearly multiples of effort more difficult to cancel than to subscribe. Common example being - can only cancel over the phone after being told 10 reasons by a sales rep as to why you should continue to pay. This is not down to user-error, this is blatantly trying to fraud your users.
Maybe some did but the support is vastly overblown. r/nba did a poll (never stickied it) and 8,000 people voted. 72% in favor of privating the subredddit. On a random Thursday afternoon it has 33,000 people online. And the polls were posted in r/modcoord.
It seems to me a lot of subs also said they were closing for 2 days, but never re-opened. I understand that logic, but because the subreddits have stayed close there is no way for that community to indicate if they support the ongoing protest. There's a big difference between voting 'yes' to closing for 48 hours vs permanently.
TBH, 25% voter turnover for an internet forum is pretty high. Remember that the most participated US elections (which have billions thrown into ad campaigns and is in constant news) top out at 70%.
I cancelled Amazon Prime a couple of months ago and have made a couple of purchases since. I'm not sure how they can people are tricked into signing up for it. I would say brow beaten is a better word since you have to click like three prompts basically stating you're some kind of freak who doesn't want the convenience of Prime and its many benefits.
It took me something like two years of attempts to actually cancel Amazon Prime from their dark patterns. They also include brow beating you on possible money "lost" if you cancel because many of their pages have a dark pattern of suggesting they offer no refunds or prorating, especially if you are cancelling the same day of an automatic payment.
(It turns out that do actually refund it, otherwise in my second attempt I would have considered taking it to a lawyer and/or the BBB. It's still disgusting that they make you click through a bunch of "are you sure, you probably won't get a refund?" text before that.)
Yeah, I hate Amazon but I do think personal responsibility is really lacking. FTC should focus on making cancellations easier and mandatory. I am evaluating privacy.com because of some bad experiences with this factor. Privacy.com uses Plaid which I dont really want to allow so any suggestions of temporary cards are welcome.
Anyway, I also recently signed up for prime because I got a gift card and it didnt seem "tricky". I do hate dark patterns though which Amazon has a lot of. Frankly, things like this lawsuit are just a boon for lawyers. How much would i get back on a few months of $14 charges?
> TBH I don't see what changed on Spotify for a customer perspective in the past few years. I still see bugs I reported years ago, the UI is largely the same.
He didn't get into it because you answered it yourself. And anyone who has used it for a while has most likely the same initial thought.