I'm a product design & strategy lead (agency-side), and it's actually unique to get a client who is open to being told "you shouldn't make this."

Or even a client who is open to having us find out why we should make something, what it should do, how it should work etc before actually going to make it.

It's truly incredible how most major companies just decide to make something out of thin air pretty much. I'm working with a major airline right now who has never done any kind of strategy or discovery.

I do actually think Google tends to be pretty good at quickly and seamlessly scrapping things that don't have a high use rate. I've also been hired by them to do *just* discovery work, so I think they're way better than most.

But yeah. It's wild out there. It seems logical that making a new product would start with the question, "what do people want? What problems can we solve?" But most of the time, it does not.

Edit to add: I know Ford's famous quote of, "if I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse."

But before anyone says that sometimes tech needs inform people about what they want, it doesn't. I'd argue that Ford did exactly that -- made a faster horse. It's still what people wanted.

Yup. Another famous “nonprofit”.

People don’t realize how little the term really means in the US. It’s a corporate tax structure, nothing more.

Another example is all these “mega churches”.

> No one ever needs to buy into the model and, as the business grows, the percentage of available ownership expands.

The NFL

>Arrogance

Take a look in the mirror, pal.

Maybeeeee relying on the private sector to work out subsidized housing is not such a good idea after all

Because all levels were mixed again, people need to be taught to their ability. If someone is struggling they should get remedial help instead of social promotion and disruption

[deleted]

Is there a buy in for new employees? What happens if you quit?

I have no idea while I'm still engaging with you.

Take care!

> they're very well within their legal rights to opt with the other applicant.

Of course they are. I’m not sure why you’re repeating yourself when I already agreed with you. Not discriminating against vouchers does not mean favoring vouchers. I never claimed that and I already told you that.

What I have said is that the voucher status isn’t supposed to be part of the decision at all. If a landlord consistently ends up accepting non-vouchered applicants over vouchered ones, though, it would be hard to come up with an explanation that doesn’t rely on the voucher factoring in to the decision.

His hands were tied in Toronto too. Two cities that got the right guy for the job and squandered it. Oh well at lest Jane Jacobs was effective in both 🤷‍♀️

It's one dude who clearly does not give a shit about Jews, black people, hate crimes etc... But is arguing about subjective terminology used to describe the suspect. You can see from his other posts on Reddit he is a deranged Trumper who is directly biased/racist towards black people as well

Personally I think people like that are mentally unhinged and project a lot of crazy ideas they have on everyone else (ie "you are all obsessed with race not me!!"), so it's best to ignore or block them

“The MTA police chief issued a statement, saying in part, "Having made a rapid arrest, it is now up to prosecutors to ensure the law is enforced, so this violent perpetrator faces consequences, and the victims receive the justice they deserve."”

This is me, not holding my breath.

The LL can't say they don't accept vouchers and can't deny solely based on the voucher.

But again, if there is an applicant without a voucher, they're very well within their legal rights to opt with the other applicant.

Vouchers aren't a golden ticket.

> The voucher isn’t supposed to be factored into the decision at all.

Discriminating on education and professional qualifications is one of the forms that is legal and societally accepted.

This is closer to employers discriminating based on criminal history in jurisdictions that have enacted “ban the box” laws. They’re not supposed to make decisions based on that particular characteristic.

Next time I’m in that area I will stop by for a cup of coffee.

Then where is the prejudice in electing to choose the most qualified applicant?

Is it prejudice when a company hires the person with an MBA versus a GED?

Why would you take a voucher?

When you are woke, everything is prejudice and discrimination.

NOT WITH MY VPN!!!!

(After I download it and install it onto my computer….)

Very true if I like to see men gaping u know what that my business and not to be used against me

No one said they do, but if the decision always ends up being for the non-vouchered applicant, well, one has to wonder how that happens without discrimination. The voucher isn’t supposed to be factored into the decision at all.

Ayy, workers coop. You love to see it.

LLs cannot discriminate based on their source of lawful income. We all know that.

But they don't have to choose an applicant with a voucher over someone without.