Yes, work will expand to fill all your available hours due to unaligned incentives between who does the work (the SWE in this example) and who decide the quantity, timeline, and cost of work.

If the SWE can finish his work faster, 8x faster in this case, then backlogs will also be pushed to complete 8x faster by the project manager. If there are no backlogs, new features will be required at 8x faster / more by sales team / clients. If no new features are needed, pressures will be made until costs are 8x lower by finance. If there are no legal, moral, competitive, or physical constraints, the process should continue until either there’s only a single dev working on all his available time, or less time but for considerably less salary.

The most interesting parts of this paper (in my opinion) from Microsoft Research are found on page 12 and 13, where they list the jobs and occupations most and least likely to be impacted by AI, respectively.

The top most impacted job is Interpreters and Translators, which seems right. The 17th however is Mathematician, which to me seems overconfident?

The least impacted jobs are mostly jobs that require physical interaction with the real world and / or have critical safety requirements, so no surprises there. Dishwashers being one of the last jobs to be taken by AI (24th from the bottom) did make me laugh, though.

I cannot fathom how one can compare crushing inanimate objects (commodity ones, at that) to murdering living things.

Even then; we regularly celebrate movies in which human beings are depicted as having their brains splattered out of their heads (The Departed won best picture), so I’m not sure where the basis to complain about depicting even murder in video art comes from. Not everyone likes puppies; pretty much 100% of everyone loves at least some humans.

Sure. I'm not claiming that everyone must find the ad disturbing, just that the ones who do tend to feel much more strongly than those who don't, and their feelings tend to not to be dismissed as hyperbole by the general public. I chose puppies as example since many people love dogs, but you can just as easily substitute your favorite objects / animals here.

Gitcoin probably would work for developers, who are highly paid already and their code have high potential of being used in profitable projects. Not so well for artists who earn a fraction of developers' salary and their arts are already being treated like commodity.

I am not sure if it will work but worth experimenting. Probably you will have a certain limitations on free usage before the tokens.

I feel there has be an easy way for to earn digital rights, digital equity , digital money for the artistic minds in this digital era which is proliferating very fast.

The differences I can see are these:

With websites you can set a robot.txt file to opt out of indexing, and if they keep indexing anyway there are mechanisms to block it, both technical (i.e. ip restrictions) and legal (you can sue the indexer). The average website owners are also more technical and can understand the benefits and mechanisms, so presumably if you let your site gets indexed it's because you want to. And even so, what you want is for the search result page to drive traffic back to your site, not so that another site can be generated somewhere else and profited off by other.

With images, the artists are generally not technical and savvy enough to know how to opt out, there are currently no mechanism to opt out of indexing anyway once the image is uploaded to internet, the generated images do not increase awareness of the artist or drive traffic to their websites in any way (if they even have a website), plus the explicit goals of the resulting images are to make money for the model owner and the prompter.

Changes take time, and there are massive opportunity costs to moving your supply chain base elsewhere. If other countries can do manufacturing equally well (same quality, cost, legal environment, etc), but you already have your base fully established in China serving your entire global operations, moving to the another country gives you no benefits, and you face the risk of severe disruptions to your operations if anything goes wrong.

So the world will only move out of China if other countries like India can offer significantly lower cost at same quality, which they haven't been able to do, or if there are significant geopolitical risks to staying, which seems likelier by the day.

The board cannot, by itself, decide the value per share. The board can present its opinion that the deal is fair by approving it, and suggest that all shareholders take this course of action by subjecting the deal for shareholder vote. If the majority of shareholders agree by voting in favor, then the company will be sold, even if a significant minority disagrees, because the company is structured to act according to the will of the majority. That's what makes this a "fair deal".

It would be good to get confirmation on this as it contradicts statements upthread saying the board, in USA [though I'd expect it might be specific to a stock market], decided on behalf of the shareholders (to whom they have a duty).

Someone noted the UK position required shareholder assent, which sounds like what you're saying here.

If shareholders vote that sounds 'fair'. If the board decided and shareholders are obliged to go with it as that's how shares are [in some particular jurisdiction/market] then it being fair seems of no concern to that system (as a sibling content intimated).

If you look at (at least one) of the recent articles (try AP or reuters), the board mentioned that the deal is still subject to both shareholder and regulatory approval. That's where it is. Shareholders still have to vote, and the concept of "fairness" will be roughly equal to that of democratic elections. Sometimes the majority votes for a thing and the minority has to accept it in order to make progress.

The board basically voted to stop standing in the way of the deal and submit it to shareholders themselves since they confirmed that A) it seems like an ok deal and B) it's likely to not waste everyone's time.

It's a bit messy. Legally the board has to act in the best interest of all shareholders. In actual trials the judges tend to defer to the board's business judgment since they are intimately involved with the company's strategy and operations, unless the opposing shareholders can provide evidence of equal experience or understanding of business. In practice however, sitting on a company's board is a job, and the directors mostly do what the shareholders want to protect their career and professional image.

In this case, Reuters reported here https://www.reuters.com/technology/exclusive-twitter-set-acc... that the deal is subject to shareholders vote before it can be closed.

Revenue share and price parity are standard clauses in most department store lease contracts and not at all unprecedented, at least in my experience. My company is routinely told that if we want the lease, we must pay a fixed percentage on sales (usually 25%) as rent, must not list a price higher than can be found elsewhere for an identical item, and all payments must be handled by the department store themselves.

I assume there's a minimum required so the landlord has all upside and no risk. That sounds like a super bad deal. The only way I can see that being practical is if you're getting space in a super exclusive location where the clientele are mega rich and the margins are insane.