SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Instagram Co-Founders to Step Down From Facebook
The two co-founders of Facebook Inc.'s popular Instagram app are stepping down, a move marking continued tumult at the social-networking giant.
The co-founders—Kevin Systrom, Instagram's chief executive, and Mike Krieger, chief technology officer—clashed with Facebook executives over the extent of Instagram's autonomy in recent months, according to people familiar with the matter. Earlier this year, Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg shifted a senior Facebook executive, Adam Mosseri, over to Instagram in anticipation that the founders might leave, one of the people said.
Among other things, Facebook officials, including Mr. Zuckerberg, clashed with the co-founders over growth tactics and how to more rapidly expand the photo-sharing app's user base, another person said. Senior Facebook officials had known the two men were frustrated working within a large company and had begun making preparations for them to leave, another person familiar with the matter said.
Also at NYT, The Atlantic, and Gizmodo.
Related: Facebook's Instagram Valued at $100 Billion (It Was Purchased for $1 Billion)
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday September 26 2018, @07:33PM (35 children)
I bet they could do a lot more about it from the inside of Facebook than as penniless outsiders. Just look at how many leaks have come out of Google lately.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 26 2018, @07:55PM (34 children)
Guys, language is meant to put one person's thoughts into another person's head.
This thread here is talking about ONE MAN. When you say "they", nothing makes much sense, especially when you mix it with singular forms such as in "What if they were a billionaire"; that makes no sense—my mind tries to re-write it as "What if they were billionaires" (you know, because it looks like the description is supposed to involve plurality).
Let me help you out here: "He" et al. are gender-neutral pronouns for referring to people; "it" is meant for referring to non-people (or infants, frankly); "she" et al. is meant to refer to special, precious things such as a woman or a boat, etc.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 26 2018, @08:00PM (6 children)
That last sentence should be:
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 26 2018, @11:15PM (5 children)
iow, property?
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 26 2018, @11:21PM (4 children)
"Is your wife special to you?"
"Yes."
"Is your boat special to you?"
"Yes."
"Misogynist! Have you stopped beating your wife yet?!"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 27 2018, @12:09AM (3 children)
Are you proposing that the speaker to refer the speaker's son as "she" because the son is precious to the speaker?
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 27 2018, @02:22AM (2 children)
The English language reflects a very important historical fact about humanity: Males are disposable, and society works best when females are put atop a pedestal so that young men have something to fight wars for. This is even the case among Muslims, who believe that Islam requires a woman to be covered in public not because she's worth so little but rather because she's worth so much, and her honor must be protected.
Traditionally, males don't qualify for the angelic description "she". Feminism isn't bringing females up to the status of males, but is rather pulling females down to the status of males, and it's making everyone confused and irritable. Young men no longer have anybody to impress with their achievements, and women no longer get a pass for their relative ineptitude.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 27 2018, @02:58AM (1 child)
so... property?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 27 2018, @03:45AM
So... no.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday September 26 2018, @08:08PM (22 children)
I assumed ikanreed was talking about multiple hypothetical Facebook insiders.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 26 2018, @08:22PM (21 children)
"What if there were a billionaire with some kind of ethical boundary?"
People forget (read: don't know) that the singular present subjunctive mood of "to be" is "were", not "was", making the above re-interpretation quite plausible.
So, basically, I was stuck re-reading the remarks, trying out different approaches. What a drag.
Folks, singular "they" is SHIT.
(Score: 3, Informative) by acid andy on Wednesday September 26 2018, @10:47PM (11 children)
FTFY. It's an incredible handy gender-neutral pronoun that's been in use as such for a long time. You can't escape the fact that the word "he" does have some associations with masculinity, regardless of whether or not you choose to use it as a gender-neutral pronoun. The singular "they" just does not have that problem and when used carefully there need not be any ambiguity.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 26 2018, @11:17PM (10 children)
The explosive usefulness of modern, variable-based mathematical logic can be traced back to this revelation: Making a statement about a single object is far superior to making an Aristotelian statement about a group of objects.
Stupid, mundane communication can bear singular "they", because it's easy enough to fix it on the fly into something actually intelligible. However, when it comes to communicating a complex thought, it's the dregs.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 26 2018, @11:53PM (6 children)
Um... your understanding of algebra is... unique.
May I blow your mind? Allow me to introduce you to the set of real numbers, which we may call ℝ for shorthand. In middle school algebra, x ∃ ℝ. Thus any statement concerning x is a statement concerning a group of objects.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 27 2018, @12:34AM (5 children)
All you've done is revealed that you are a sloppy thinker, which is fine enough for mundane purposes in life, but not for much else. That's why you've never noticed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 27 2018, @01:29AM (4 children)
Do you have a counterargument, or...?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 27 2018, @02:24AM (3 children)
Your statement is false outright; it's not a logical fallacy that can be pointed out—it's just wrong.
Write a sentence with "x", and we'll discuss it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 27 2018, @02:37AM (2 children)
Ok. The x is blue. Enlighten me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 27 2018, @02:51AM (1 child)
I don't need to enlighten you, because you enlightened yourself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 27 2018, @03:17AM
Objection! Parent comment does not provide any enlightenment or discussion! Immediately provide discussion, or I will be forced to refer this matter to the infinite contract-enforcing turtles!
(Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Thursday September 27 2018, @12:53AM
Are you ever going to give us an example of non-stupid or non-mundane communication? Because nothing you've said to date has been worth the fuss. "They" works for much more complex communication than anything you've said to date.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Thursday September 27 2018, @12:50PM (1 child)
When used in the singular form, "they" does refer to a single object and not a group of objects, a bit like how the gender-neutral form of "he" does refer to someone of an unspecified gender and not necessarily a male. The reason the singular "they" is better is because you can almost always distinguish it from the plural "they" just by looking at the verb. Conversely, there is often no evidence presented in a sentence to distinguish between the masculine "he" and the gender-neutral "he".
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 27 2018, @03:43PM
There is just feminine "she". Everything else is merely non-feminine; there's the definite feminine, and then there is everything else, which depends on context—a special place is given solely to the feminine.
Your singular they is a failure of the mind [soylentnews.org].
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 26 2018, @11:41PM (8 children)
Somebody got triggered.
The only grammatical error in "What if they were a billionaire with some kind of ethical boundary." is the punctuation at the end. What is a question word, so the terminating punctuation should have been a question mark. Languages change over time. Deal with it, cupcake.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 26 2018, @11:52PM (7 children)
Language is a protocol, and a protocol requires agreement.
In mundane cases, one participant in the protocol can just re-write mistakes on the fly with little worry; that's the only reason singular "they" appears to work—it's always being re-written behind the scenes.
You have provided yet another interpretation; we've already seen from the replies here that nobody is really talking about the same thing, because everyone is re-writing it in slightly different ways. But, he, diversity is a strength, amirite?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 27 2018, @12:02AM (4 children)
I am sorry that you suffer from autism. It must make many activities that neurotypical people take for granted very difficult. I have heard promising things about the application of cannabis bud in cases of autism.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 27 2018, @12:31AM (3 children)
It has made me very rich.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 27 2018, @01:14AM (2 children)
Allow me to imitate the UN delegation.
*snort* lol!
Just to be clear, I am laughing at you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 27 2018, @02:56AM (1 child)
So, laugh away if it makes you feel better.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 27 2018, @03:20AM
It does, thank you. Laughter has many benefits that are documented in the relevant medical literature. I appreciate your services as court jester. I really do! You're special to me! I will refer to you as she from now on. You've earned it!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday September 27 2018, @01:36AM (1 child)
Not from you, it doesn't. Your toddler has to agree because you have the terrible power of the fridge and the car keys.
They would anyway. So many people here aren't actually responding to what you write in the first place. Particularly, the sort that starts posts with "So what you're saying is..."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 27 2018, @02:27AM
Or are you just a parrot he's trained well?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday September 27 2018, @01:15AM (3 children)
No. "He" is masculine. "One" is gender-neutral of the appropriate singular form. One often tends to sound a little pretentious when using it though.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 27 2018, @02:33AM
Hmm... one does not recall a specific antecedent. Does it? Do you have a usage example of one referring to an antecedent?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 27 2018, @02:40AM (1 child)
English only has the "precious" form, which we call "feminine", because among humans, women are considered the height of preciousness. If there are "masculine" forms, it's only because they aren't "feminine" forms.
Do you think, for example, that so many laws were written strictly for men? Of course not; it's just that the non-"feminine" forms are what actually apply to everyone, and "he" is singular and therefore much more precise than "they" (and "one" is both cumbersome and imprecise, and "it" applies to non-people, which is important, because most language is meant to convey what "he" and "she" did with "it" in front of "them"—human language evolved to relay information about humans interacting in the world). Indeed, one could also tie this back to the pedestal on which women are naturally placed: Crime is something expected of men due to their sinful nature, not women and their angelic nature.
As usual, the giant sociopolitical movements are based on the exact wrong interpretation of history. It's not the case that women have been oppressed to benefit men, but rather that men have been oppressed to benefit women. Language reflects this fact. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 27 2018, @03:28AM
Ah, I think I get it!
Anarcho-capitalism is feasible after all, once men have been made extinct. Silly me! We might have trouble convincing some of the women on this board, but I am certain that your eloquence will convince them to come around to this profound truth.