The Republicans can only get rid of it if it is unsuccessful, which is why they tried so hard to get rid of it before it was enacted. Even so, repealing it would take a Republican president and simple majority in both the house and senate, which is much harder.
Luckily for the Republicans they will always be able to find some metrics that show that it was a failure. Health care premiums will continue to rise no matter what until we serious talk about rationing care, so any health care plan written by either party will always leave room for complaints.
How many times have you guys been told by a project manager that QA testing starts on Wednesday and Go-Live is on Friday? I had a meeting once where a manager said we needed to improve our planning so we weren't constantly doing bug fixing on Thursday and Friday morning, and was willing to put in place so many new procedures, workflows, and documentation but never give more time between the start of QA and product roll-out.
If your car ends up dead, you should use signals, like triangles, to warn drivers.
Obviously you are correct about this, but that doesn't change who is at fault. There are no laws that require the use of hazard signals. It is purely a courtesy.
Technically a 100% of the blame goes to the guy behind who did the rear-ending
Why did you even use the word 'technically'? 100% of the blame rightly goes to the one doing the rear ending. If my car died while waiting at a red light someone doesn't have the right to kill me.
Even if you are doing something illegal, that doesn't shift blame for the actual accident. If I am listening to a pirated song on my MP3 player when someone rear ends me I don't share in blame for that either.
It is even easier than that. Just go to Amazon and check the used book price for each book. If the book is selling for a dollar or less, there probably isn't any demand. Set whatever threshold is worth your time, whether that is $2 or $20, and toss the rest.
Ah the same decade AI people have been telling us about for nearly 50 years. Frankly, I'm not sure we are really any closer today than we were in the 60s.
That is hope exponential growth works. It looks like you haven't made any progress at all until at one point progress explodes. If you started filling up Lake Michigan in 1940 with one fluid ounce, and then each eighteen months you double that. By 2010, 70 years later, you don't even have enough water for a goldfish. But by 2020 you have 40 standing feet of water, and by 2025 the whole lake is filled. And this type of trend is exactly what has happened for the past half century in the growth of computer processing capability.
Who knows how long away true AI is, but whenever it does happen I am sure that 5 years earlier it would have looked like it would take another century.
I agree, the research based classes are ones I think would be great for research based professors to continue to teach. But usually undergrads only take one or two (or none) of these classes. These classes are great for the students who are able to self-learn and don't have much use for most of the classes in a standard undergrad education.
That is common practice, but those graduate classes are usually ones that anyone with a BS in IT would test out of when in their graduate program. They are basically just glorified senior level classes to get graduate students who were journalism majors ready for their more "graduate level" classes. There were four classes like this in my program and I tested out of three of them (would have done all four but I didn't know it was an option at first).
In the one class I did take, about three quarters of the students were seniors. This was because it really was an undergraduate level class masquerading as a graduate course.
No. Getting an MBA would have been ideal but because I was a screw-up in my early twenties I had to finish my bachelors online. Since those schools are just diploma mills and everyone knows it, I got my MS in computer science at a good school to wash the stink of the UoP degree off my resume.
Masters degrees in IT are basically just for people who have an irrelevant bachelors who are changing fields, for people who couldn't find a job so they stayed in school, or those who want to transition into research. If you have a bachelors at a good school and don't want to do research, an MBA would be much better. If you have a BS in computer science and learn a lot in an MS:CS program, you really need to learn how to read a book on your own.
Graduate classes or upper level undergrad courses. There's a few years between freshman survey courses and grad school.
No I meant graduate classes not upper level undergrad courses. The level of specialization that a professor has is not going to apply to courses taught in the senior year of an undergrad program. Even those classes are going to be broad enough that someone specializing in teaching is going to know far more about the breadth of the topic than a researcher who has a far more focused specialization. You don't need someone doing research into optimizing indexes for distributed columnar databases to teach a senior about the CAP theorem.
That should not be extrapolated into tenured professors being worse teachers overall. I'm pretty certain that for advanced studies, the opposite is true, if nothing else because the untenured teachers don't have the same chance to specialize.
By advanced studies I assume you mean graduate classes correct? Because if you are implying that anything taught at the undergraduate level requires a level of specialization beyond what an adjunct can possess, I strongly disagree. I would venture to say that almost all graduate classes don't require that much specialization either. I went to a school at the bottom end of the top 50 nation-wide, and almost all of my graduate classes were a joke. The only real benefit was resume padding and the chance to become involved in research (where I learned a great deal).
Tenured professors will still be useful for their research. This is both because of the results of the research and for the opportunity they give students who assist with the research. But if their research is important at all then they are probably wasting their time teaching, and apparently doing a worse job than those who would have focused on teaching full time. I know my research advisor could have got much more done if she didn't have to prepare lectures all the time.
No, "rock star" developers are a recruitment term. Developers (or any professional) who can sell themselves on their own merits doesn't need a term like "rock star" to describe themselves, their work speaks for itself.
The term "Rock Star Developer" can have meaning even if almost no one that meets the criteria would ever refer to themselves as one. Based on the praise I get from my coworkers and clients, I feel that I am very good at what I do, but I would never refer to myself as a "rock star developer". The very idea of saying that to someone makes me want to beat myself up.
But I still agree with Proudrooster and Penguinisto when they say rock star developers do exist and they are very valuable. They are not invaluable (and the very use of that term makes this Ask Slashdot question ridiculous) but they are often worth a dozen average developers if the project is large and complex enough to take advantage of their abilities. I would rather work on a team with one rock star developer and a couple interns than a dozen average developers who I can't trust (which is the vast majority of coworkers I have had in my career).
DevOps (glorified sysadmin who can talk to folks and write code)
I agree with everything else you said, but this statement is really out of place. You are extolling the virtues of developers who are the elite in their field, and then berate other professionals that are some of the top in their field. Someone could just as easily say "Rock Star Developers (glorified programmers who actually know what they are doing)" and they would come off just as arrogant as you did.
I appreciate working with anyone who really knows what they are doing, whether they be sys admin, project managers, QA testers, business analysts, or other developers like me.
What is "legitimately wrong," "severe," or "reasonable"? This is what I tried to point out.
Fair enough.
What I was trying to point out is that people are capable of answering those questions even though it would take a book to actually codify it. The human ability to understand social interactions at the level we can is simply miraculous.
If that were unequivocally true, there would be no human conflict.
Where I come from, we understand that a woman who has a child out of wedlock may be a victim of her circumstances, and thus do not punish her for it, but as that cultural value (among others) is not universally understood or appreciated, your hypothesis is negated.
It is acceptable for people to make mistakes, and the backlash that follows should be proportionate to the level in which they messed up. People are perfectly capable of driving cars even though sometimes we get into a crash. You just assign fault, pay the bill (sometimes in criminal court in extreme cases), and go about your life.
I have offended plenty of people in my day. One time in my youth I made a very inappropriate racist joke when I didn't realize someone of that race was present (not that it would have been okay otherwise, but that is what made me realize the error of my ways). I was also a huge jackass once when I ended a relationship badly. I doubt anyone can say they have never acted inappropriately, but there is a difference between making mistakes and not acknowledging that you even broke the "rules" of social decency.
The existence of human conflict does not prove people are incapable of understand human decency. It merely proves that humans aren't perfect.
Judging by how incidents like TechCrunch does happen and how people's reactions are divided to say the least, I disagree with your assertion that the human brain is capable of understanding it.
I perfectly accept that people can disagree on what is acceptable. But the original post I was responding to was trying to use the "No true Scotsman" defense and I was replying that our society is capable of determining that some behavior is unacceptable for functioning adults (regardless of the subjective nature of social interactions). I am passing no judgement on the behavior of the individuals in the story.
I didn't say that people should disregard it, but I do believe people should stop pretending that they're objectively correct (as you seemed to do when you said certain people have "serious developmental issues").
I do agree that rules of decency are not objectively correct. But that does not mean that people get a free pass to break them just because they are hard to codify. Humans are more than capable of understanding insanely complex social norms. When I said "serious developmental issues", I meant real issues like aspergers that prevent the brain from understanding the complexities of human interaction. It wasn't just an attempt to call people who disagree with me stupid.
If you don't have something legitimately wrong with your brain, or some severe social problems caused possibly by a very poor upbringing, then it is reasonable to expect you to follow social norms even though they are vague.
So.. humans aren't restricted to robot-like rules, but any person who doesn't understand why they should have to adhere to an arbitrary set of robot-like rules "has some serious developmental issues?"
I never said they had to adhere to an arbitrary set of robot-like rules. I said that humans are not restricted to robot-like rules. Human social interaction is a very messy and subjective area, but the human brain is more than capable of understanding it.
Political correctness is inextricably linked with hypocrisy. It is impossible to be politically correct without becoming a hypocrite.
That is only true if you take an insanely black and white position on personal freedoms and hypocrisy in general. If you believe it is hypocritical to be pro-freedom and anti-murder, then political correctness is inextricably linked with hypocrisy. But if you think humans are able to rank personal freedoms then there is no hypocrisy in political correctness.
No True Adult would tell tit jokes to a mixed audience. They must not be... True Adults!
Now, that's just vague. Who are you to decide that people who tell certain types of jokes don't act like adults (Whatever that means; it's subjective nonsense as far as I'm concerned.)?
I agree it is hard to set unambiguous rules on what it takes to be a respectable adult. The complex nature of social human interaction is one reason why creating human-like AI is so hard.
But luckily humans are not restricted to robot-like rule sets when determining appropriate behavior. Anyone who has trouble understanding why tit jokes in a professional mixed audience are a bad idea has some serious developmental issues. Either that or they are just an argumentative ass.
Just because something is subjective (like respectable behavior) does not mean people should disregard that it exists.
Why do people think that businesses need middle class families to have someone to buy goods?
Because historically it's true.
Historically the middle class is an aberration of the past 100 years, so we have very little information about how the middle class can endure changes in the economy. It is very likely that the middle class is simply a stop-gap to solve the problem of wealthy industrialists needing a large educated workforce. The current trend (although so far a shortly lived trend) is that our economy needs an ever decreasing number of incredibly well educated workers. This is one reason why the upper middle class, something that barely existed until the 70s/80s, is thriving and growing while the middle class is shrinking.
So historically you can really just pick and choose any data you want to "prove" whatever you want. The rest of your response is a well thought out argument, but saying that we have any historical trends to base theories about the future of the middle class is silly.
Your argument that income distribution doesn't matter ignores important realities. Wealthy people consume a lower percentage of their income than others. Great, you say, then they can invest more! Invest in what? Productive investments like factories, improved technology, etc. aren't worthwhile unless you have enough customers. Not only do the rich spend less of their income, but they don't care much about price. They often buy expensive "craft made" goods that don't benefit from more capital investment. So what to invest in? Land? Like other unproductive investments it leads to bubbles if too much money is chasing too few returns.
Most of the large scale investments that improved the world were initially meant for the wealthy (or perhaps the military). Whether it be cars, computers, electricity, indoor plumbing, or anything else I can think of. There are probably many exceptions, but most technologies are first marketed to the wealthy. So it seems that there is plenty of reason to invest even before you start marketing to the middle class. Even if you are just thinking about investments in factories and other forms of mass production, remember that the first crop of super rich industrialists came to power long before the middle class did.
There are plenty of benefits in selling primarily to well off individuals. Apple sure is making a lot more money than Dell is right now. Like you said, the rich don't care much about price so there are huge profit margins there.
Eventually, almost all jobs will be gone. Then who will the one percenters sell their products to?
Why do people think that businesses need middle class families to have someone to buy goods? I personally blame the myth of Henry Ford raising salaries so his employees could buy cars (hint: it was just to reduce turnover). The truth is that as long as the total amount of money in the economy is increasing, that alone will improve business opportunities regardless of the level of income disparity. Income disparity only becomes a problem for the rich when they are unable to find enough skilled labor (like in the early to mid 20th century) or once the cost of policing the wretched masses becomes too costly.
If the middle class goes away and a small rich elite has all of the money, all that will happen is sales of the Ford Focus will shrink and sales of BMWs will increase. This trend is bad for the average man, but it will not affect the ability of the rich to find products to sell and buyers for these products.
If all a company does is acquire wealth for its owners, without providing any public benefit, why the hell should it continue to exist?
Any company that does not provide any public benefit would crumble almost immediately. If they aren't producing anything that are valuable enough to society for people to pay for, how do they stay in business?
Businesses exist because we, the body public, choose to let them exist in order to provide a net positive contribution to our society. Any business that has no reasonable expectation of being good for society, now or in the future, should be eliminated.
Businesses are good for society when they provide something of use to society. Jobs are a byproduct of their operation, not the actual reason for having a business. The more value a company can provide for the least amount of effort, the better the company is at being good for society.
By your logic, if a company started providing food to the entire world for free without needing a single employee beyond the CEO, it should be eliminated because it isn't creating any jobs.
Slashdot Mirror
The Republicans can only get rid of it if it is unsuccessful, which is why they tried so hard to get rid of it before it was enacted. Even so, repealing it would take a Republican president and simple majority in both the house and senate, which is much harder.
Luckily for the Republicans they will always be able to find some metrics that show that it was a failure. Health care premiums will continue to rise no matter what until we serious talk about rationing care, so any health care plan written by either party will always leave room for complaints.
How many times have you guys been told by a project manager that QA testing starts on Wednesday and Go-Live is on Friday? I had a meeting once where a manager said we needed to improve our planning so we weren't constantly doing bug fixing on Thursday and Friday morning, and was willing to put in place so many new procedures, workflows, and documentation but never give more time between the start of QA and product roll-out.
If your car ends up dead, you should use signals, like triangles, to warn drivers.
Obviously you are correct about this, but that doesn't change who is at fault. There are no laws that require the use of hazard signals. It is purely a courtesy.
Technically a 100% of the blame goes to the guy behind who did the rear-ending
Why did you even use the word 'technically'? 100% of the blame rightly goes to the one doing the rear ending. If my car died while waiting at a red light someone doesn't have the right to kill me.
Even if you are doing something illegal, that doesn't shift blame for the actual accident. If I am listening to a pirated song on my MP3 player when someone rear ends me I don't share in blame for that either.
It is even easier than that. Just go to Amazon and check the used book price for each book. If the book is selling for a dollar or less, there probably isn't any demand. Set whatever threshold is worth your time, whether that is $2 or $20, and toss the rest.
Ah the same decade AI people have been telling us about for nearly 50 years. Frankly, I'm not sure we are really any closer today than we were in the 60s.
That is hope exponential growth works. It looks like you haven't made any progress at all until at one point progress explodes. If you started filling up Lake Michigan in 1940 with one fluid ounce, and then each eighteen months you double that. By 2010, 70 years later, you don't even have enough water for a goldfish. But by 2020 you have 40 standing feet of water, and by 2025 the whole lake is filled. And this type of trend is exactly what has happened for the past half century in the growth of computer processing capability.
Who knows how long away true AI is, but whenever it does happen I am sure that 5 years earlier it would have looked like it would take another century.
I agree, the research based classes are ones I think would be great for research based professors to continue to teach. But usually undergrads only take one or two (or none) of these classes. These classes are great for the students who are able to self-learn and don't have much use for most of the classes in a standard undergrad education.
That is common practice, but those graduate classes are usually ones that anyone with a BS in IT would test out of when in their graduate program. They are basically just glorified senior level classes to get graduate students who were journalism majors ready for their more "graduate level" classes. There were four classes like this in my program and I tested out of three of them (would have done all four but I didn't know it was an option at first).
In the one class I did take, about three quarters of the students were seniors. This was because it really was an undergraduate level class masquerading as a graduate course.
did you get an MBA?
No. Getting an MBA would have been ideal but because I was a screw-up in my early twenties I had to finish my bachelors online. Since those schools are just diploma mills and everyone knows it, I got my MS in computer science at a good school to wash the stink of the UoP degree off my resume.
Masters degrees in IT are basically just for people who have an irrelevant bachelors who are changing fields, for people who couldn't find a job so they stayed in school, or those who want to transition into research. If you have a bachelors at a good school and don't want to do research, an MBA would be much better. If you have a BS in computer science and learn a lot in an MS:CS program, you really need to learn how to read a book on your own.
Graduate classes or upper level undergrad courses. There's a few years between freshman survey courses and grad school.
No I meant graduate classes not upper level undergrad courses. The level of specialization that a professor has is not going to apply to courses taught in the senior year of an undergrad program. Even those classes are going to be broad enough that someone specializing in teaching is going to know far more about the breadth of the topic than a researcher who has a far more focused specialization. You don't need someone doing research into optimizing indexes for distributed columnar databases to teach a senior about the CAP theorem.
That should not be extrapolated into tenured professors being worse teachers overall. I'm pretty certain that for advanced studies, the opposite is true, if nothing else because the untenured teachers don't have the same chance to specialize.
By advanced studies I assume you mean graduate classes correct? Because if you are implying that anything taught at the undergraduate level requires a level of specialization beyond what an adjunct can possess, I strongly disagree. I would venture to say that almost all graduate classes don't require that much specialization either. I went to a school at the bottom end of the top 50 nation-wide, and almost all of my graduate classes were a joke. The only real benefit was resume padding and the chance to become involved in research (where I learned a great deal).
Tenured professors will still be useful for their research. This is both because of the results of the research and for the opportunity they give students who assist with the research. But if their research is important at all then they are probably wasting their time teaching, and apparently doing a worse job than those who would have focused on teaching full time. I know my research advisor could have got much more done if she didn't have to prepare lectures all the time.
If your compile time is 8ms, you are probably compiling some school project.
No, "rock star" developers are a recruitment term. Developers (or any professional) who can sell themselves on their own merits doesn't need a term like "rock star" to describe themselves, their work speaks for itself.
The term "Rock Star Developer" can have meaning even if almost no one that meets the criteria would ever refer to themselves as one. Based on the praise I get from my coworkers and clients, I feel that I am very good at what I do, but I would never refer to myself as a "rock star developer". The very idea of saying that to someone makes me want to beat myself up.
But I still agree with Proudrooster and Penguinisto when they say rock star developers do exist and they are very valuable. They are not invaluable (and the very use of that term makes this Ask Slashdot question ridiculous) but they are often worth a dozen average developers if the project is large and complex enough to take advantage of their abilities. I would rather work on a team with one rock star developer and a couple interns than a dozen average developers who I can't trust (which is the vast majority of coworkers I have had in my career).
DevOps (glorified sysadmin who can talk to folks and write code)
I agree with everything else you said, but this statement is really out of place. You are extolling the virtues of developers who are the elite in their field, and then berate other professionals that are some of the top in their field. Someone could just as easily say "Rock Star Developers (glorified programmers who actually know what they are doing)" and they would come off just as arrogant as you did.
I appreciate working with anyone who really knows what they are doing, whether they be sys admin, project managers, QA testers, business analysts, or other developers like me.
What is "legitimately wrong," "severe," or "reasonable"? This is what I tried to point out.
Fair enough.
What I was trying to point out is that people are capable of answering those questions even though it would take a book to actually codify it. The human ability to understand social interactions at the level we can is simply miraculous.
If that were unequivocally true, there would be no human conflict.
Where I come from, we understand that a woman who has a child out of wedlock may be a victim of her circumstances, and thus do not punish her for it, but as that cultural value (among others) is not universally understood or appreciated, your hypothesis is negated.
It is acceptable for people to make mistakes, and the backlash that follows should be proportionate to the level in which they messed up. People are perfectly capable of driving cars even though sometimes we get into a crash. You just assign fault, pay the bill (sometimes in criminal court in extreme cases), and go about your life.
I have offended plenty of people in my day. One time in my youth I made a very inappropriate racist joke when I didn't realize someone of that race was present (not that it would have been okay otherwise, but that is what made me realize the error of my ways). I was also a huge jackass once when I ended a relationship badly. I doubt anyone can say they have never acted inappropriately, but there is a difference between making mistakes and not acknowledging that you even broke the "rules" of social decency.
The existence of human conflict does not prove people are incapable of understand human decency. It merely proves that humans aren't perfect.
Judging by how incidents like TechCrunch does happen and how people's reactions are divided to say the least, I disagree with your assertion that the human brain is capable of understanding it.
I perfectly accept that people can disagree on what is acceptable. But the original post I was responding to was trying to use the "No true Scotsman" defense and I was replying that our society is capable of determining that some behavior is unacceptable for functioning adults (regardless of the subjective nature of social interactions). I am passing no judgement on the behavior of the individuals in the story.
I didn't say that people should disregard it, but I do believe people should stop pretending that they're objectively correct (as you seemed to do when you said certain people have "serious developmental issues").
I do agree that rules of decency are not objectively correct. But that does not mean that people get a free pass to break them just because they are hard to codify. Humans are more than capable of understanding insanely complex social norms. When I said "serious developmental issues", I meant real issues like aspergers that prevent the brain from understanding the complexities of human interaction. It wasn't just an attempt to call people who disagree with me stupid.
If you don't have something legitimately wrong with your brain, or some severe social problems caused possibly by a very poor upbringing, then it is reasonable to expect you to follow social norms even though they are vague.
So.. humans aren't restricted to robot-like rules, but any person who doesn't understand why they should have to adhere to an arbitrary set of robot-like rules "has some serious developmental issues?"
I never said they had to adhere to an arbitrary set of robot-like rules. I said that humans are not restricted to robot-like rules. Human social interaction is a very messy and subjective area, but the human brain is more than capable of understanding it.
Political correctness is inextricably linked with hypocrisy. It is impossible to be politically correct without becoming a hypocrite.
That is only true if you take an insanely black and white position on personal freedoms and hypocrisy in general. If you believe it is hypocritical to be pro-freedom and anti-murder, then political correctness is inextricably linked with hypocrisy. But if you think humans are able to rank personal freedoms then there is no hypocrisy in political correctness.
No True Adult would tell tit jokes to a mixed audience. They must not be... True Adults!
Now, that's just vague. Who are you to decide that people who tell certain types of jokes don't act like adults (Whatever that means; it's subjective nonsense as far as I'm concerned.)?
I agree it is hard to set unambiguous rules on what it takes to be a respectable adult. The complex nature of social human interaction is one reason why creating human-like AI is so hard.
But luckily humans are not restricted to robot-like rule sets when determining appropriate behavior. Anyone who has trouble understanding why tit jokes in a professional mixed audience are a bad idea has some serious developmental issues. Either that or they are just an argumentative ass.
Just because something is subjective (like respectable behavior) does not mean people should disregard that it exists.
Why do people think that businesses need middle class families to have someone to buy goods?
Because historically it's true.
Historically the middle class is an aberration of the past 100 years, so we have very little information about how the middle class can endure changes in the economy. It is very likely that the middle class is simply a stop-gap to solve the problem of wealthy industrialists needing a large educated workforce. The current trend (although so far a shortly lived trend) is that our economy needs an ever decreasing number of incredibly well educated workers. This is one reason why the upper middle class, something that barely existed until the 70s/80s, is thriving and growing while the middle class is shrinking.
So historically you can really just pick and choose any data you want to "prove" whatever you want. The rest of your response is a well thought out argument, but saying that we have any historical trends to base theories about the future of the middle class is silly.
Your argument that income distribution doesn't matter ignores important realities. Wealthy people consume a lower percentage of their income than others. Great, you say, then they can invest more! Invest in what? Productive investments like factories, improved technology, etc. aren't worthwhile unless you have enough customers. Not only do the rich spend less of their income, but they don't care much about price. They often buy expensive "craft made" goods that don't benefit from more capital investment. So what to invest in? Land? Like other unproductive investments it leads to bubbles if too much money is chasing too few returns.
Most of the large scale investments that improved the world were initially meant for the wealthy (or perhaps the military). Whether it be cars, computers, electricity, indoor plumbing, or anything else I can think of. There are probably many exceptions, but most technologies are first marketed to the wealthy. So it seems that there is plenty of reason to invest even before you start marketing to the middle class. Even if you are just thinking about investments in factories and other forms of mass production, remember that the first crop of super rich industrialists came to power long before the middle class did.
There are plenty of benefits in selling primarily to well off individuals. Apple sure is making a lot more money than Dell is right now. Like you said, the rich don't care much about price so there are huge profit margins there.
Eventually, almost all jobs will be gone. Then who will the one percenters sell their products to?
Why do people think that businesses need middle class families to have someone to buy goods? I personally blame the myth of Henry Ford raising salaries so his employees could buy cars (hint: it was just to reduce turnover). The truth is that as long as the total amount of money in the economy is increasing, that alone will improve business opportunities regardless of the level of income disparity. Income disparity only becomes a problem for the rich when they are unable to find enough skilled labor (like in the early to mid 20th century) or once the cost of policing the wretched masses becomes too costly.
If the middle class goes away and a small rich elite has all of the money, all that will happen is sales of the Ford Focus will shrink and sales of BMWs will increase. This trend is bad for the average man, but it will not affect the ability of the rich to find products to sell and buyers for these products.
If all a company does is acquire wealth for its owners, without providing any public benefit, why the hell should it continue to exist?
Any company that does not provide any public benefit would crumble almost immediately. If they aren't producing anything that are valuable enough to society for people to pay for, how do they stay in business?
Businesses exist because we, the body public, choose to let them exist in order to provide a net positive contribution to our society. Any business that has no reasonable expectation of being good for society, now or in the future, should be eliminated.
Businesses are good for society when they provide something of use to society. Jobs are a byproduct of their operation, not the actual reason for having a business. The more value a company can provide for the least amount of effort, the better the company is at being good for society.
By your logic, if a company started providing food to the entire world for free without needing a single employee beyond the CEO, it should be eliminated because it isn't creating any jobs.