There's a bunch of ambiguity encoded in to the term "viable" here. The number of viable businesses is almost infinite. Maybe think about restructuring the question with some contexts around that viability in terms of size, area of focus, type, etc, since this will inform the answer to the question heavily.
Wait so the defense's case centers around the idea that Carreyrou had too much influence over regulators by providing extensive evidence, witness testimony, and analysis by objective third party specialists? Is this for real? By "eager to break a story" do they mean a kind of eagerness that results in a painstaking effort to build a thorough case that has been scrutinized by the public and media alike? This, like Theranos' tech, can't possibly be viable.
And a really straightforward call at that. IIRC it was something like "Bezos has a 25 million dollar house already in DC, he's obviously putting HQ2 there". All the tax stuff, economic fit, etc etc just seems like it could really be fluff to occlude the simple fact that Bezos is most comfortable with HQ2 coming to area he's already well suited to operate out of.
Currently mostly non-technical: Marketing, Sales, CX.
The topic of school tier is a messy one. Unless you're in a big org that's running really active recruiting efforts at the source of top tier schools, you may not have a real representative set of high tier applicants to ultimately check for differentiation. This topic also gets political and ideological really quick, but we do have some reasonably sound data that says for example that (and I'm speaking broadly here) people with MBA's from "division 1" style schools tend to annihilate (to put it lightly) lower tier MBA's in work simulation exercises involving business acumen related competencies.
For senior level, and YMMV, but for non-technicals, as time goes on experience beats the education badge and I think as you go higher in the sophistication of the hire the more nuanced the process becomes to where at least at the first level evaluation, formal education becomes increasingly less compelling.
This is a great question. There may be some variability by role type, but for the last two hires where I started noticing this trend usually the masters was acquired 17-18 or 18-19 on the resume (2 year masters programs). These are also for mid-level roles as opposed to entry level or senior. Probably a lot of factors but I'd wonder if the readily available access to student loans was the biggest enabler. Just off the cuff I'd be curious if these decisions involved the perception of necessity for masters degrees or in how many cases they simply wanted to prolong the experience of undergrad (college is often a good time, I get it), and with the barrier being no more frictive than the student loan process they navigated for under grad, the decision just being the path of least resistance more than a calculated risk/reward decision.
As someone who's hiring folks right now, a shocking trend is applicants who chained expensive middle tier private college expenses with middle to low tier private college masters programs - often times unrelated to the ultimately role they're applying to now.
These investments aren't setting them up to be compelling candidates against folks who have equal and sometimes lesser tier schools as their undergraduate education coupled with meaningful real world experience. This carries over to performance in interviews as it related to applied knowledge as well. I'd say when putting a risk lens to this, it doesn't bode well for the likelyhood of timely repayment of this debt at scale.
I've seen absolutely magical things happen with smart people sharing a proximal space.
I fully acknowledge the merits, tradeoffs, and viability of a remote workforce and have been remote, worked with others who were remote, seeing success and failure in both.
That being said, I've never seen truly magical things happen the way they happen when people are together. For the work, the team, and the way I want the experience for work to feel, nothing beats having folks together in the same space. Of course, YMMV.
I enjoyed imaging the abstract being read aloud by Elizabeth Holmes with her clownish deep voice she worked to portray in the later stages of her fraudulent career. It's funny how these perceptions and findings sometimes line up.
It’s a very well written piece, but it just feels too well written, to the point of feeling to precise, too calculated, too... contrived. Aside from the opinions expressed, the ideological concerns, the relevance to the current political landscape - these are all relevant and interesting explorations, but the whole narrative is just too picture perfect and too close to a screenplay. It just feels like good fiction.
The By Line is from one of their main Apple analysts paired with a guy that covers retail exclusively. Likely the story they're trying to play out is this general downward trend in retail, but there's very little steak here. It reads like a hit piece for someone with interest in the stock trading lower, rather than the meaningful reporting of legitimate news here.
God forbid a comment be made that's even partially tongue-in-cheek. With all the coverage and discussion around Uber, its business model, its financial performance etc, combined with the equivalent buzz around WeWork, I think the comment was excusable and could have gone without the personal attack with regards to understanding the generic topics of business and finance.
Tim hasn't made enough money or amassed enough power to be on the NYT scale of comparison. He's similar in terms of insanity but more niche in his influence. Similar to Joe Rogan (though less entertaining by an order of magnitude, at least imho).
I really did enjoy this framing of Jack Dorsey as a foil for Elon Musk (I mean I didn't think of this prior to the article, but it was an entertaining comparison). I think for the spectacle of it all, Elon really does need some sort of rival that's not the SEC, but a man with a face and a name and a personality and to paint it as Jack Dorsey is just wonderfully entertaining as an idea, despite being from a practical standpoint pretty irrelevant.
Were these users on the Android version of the app? Would this exploit be device agnostic or would something in how Android handles in-app payments have effected this? Does the platform matter here?
Well in her defense the Myers Briggs is tarot cards for people with LinkedIn profiles. There’s not a bit of scientific validity behind it. It’s an entertainment experience not a psychometrically valid diagnostic instrument.
I mean do you by all means, but from a hiring perspective this would be behavior we would evaluate negatively in our process. YMMV of course, and you have the right to these choices.
These Win / Fail outcomes are not nearly this binary in reality, so I don't think this is a very helpful comparison. There's a wide distribution of "Winning" and "Failing", and while these extremes do exist, they're actually both outliers (most businesses don't win "big money", also most founders don't lose their house when they fail).
Firstround shills for their founders like no other. No mention of the discipline as it relates to profitability, a healthy CAC:LTV, equity efficiency - but plenty of vanity metrics to go around, naturally amount of money raised and team size. These VC fluff pieces are increasingly insufferable PR.
Isn't it in triplebtyte's interest for these numbers to be inflated? The data seems to be at the heart of a conflict of interest, as it would not be in the author's interest for these numbers to be lower than anticipated. I don't really trust "research", or just "data" in this case coming from a party that has a very direct interest in the results being one thing over another.
YMMV of course, but this can and has backfired. If you're going out to the market and getting offers of employment you should be fully emotionally committed to leaving your organization. An individual manager who has a close relationship with you might "get it" in terms of this approach, but from a succession planning and HR perspective unless the business is aware that they're offering substantial below market rate and they are truly supply constrained, this tactic will not end well for you.
From my direct experience it's a quality thing. Once we're at 4K per eye @ 120FPS or something approaching this - and able to maintain it steadily without dropping frames, it's going to be a pretty mind blowing experience. The problem is right now the resolution and framerates just aren't there to make it feel visceral enough. I think even with just a sitting still model of a headset that has ultra high resolution and frame rate will be an iteration where things start to take off. I'd love to see things take this direction over trying to solve the problem of physically moving in a 3 dimensional space while engaging with VR.