93 karma · joined October 10, 2024
I don't really understand how everyone on this thread can explain the nuances that should be what is interesting while claiming everything is the same.
Either technology/politics has changed and organizational structures we claimed in the 1980s to be both unethical and inefficient are now only unethical, or they have not changed and we are in the same cycle with these organizations as before but somehow elongated..
But no, what is interesting to HN is that there's a lot of fine detail in the physical market, but somehow when searching for any interpretation, a widget is a widget and Apple is WD and nothing interesting will ever happen again.
The index fund may be over priced but much of the market has actual productivity that leads to dividends eventually, so whether someone will buy that off you is not about the next sucker or betting on an increase in wealth among suckers.
Intel leaving the SSD market probably has more relation to Apple than WD or Samsung.
I'm not asserting that Apple succeeds in making high quality, I'm saying their hardware trust makes them uncompetitive with the entire PC market where some brands will deliver high enough quality and all brands have access to low quality dumping to reach scale, etc.
Samsung is a much better example of a manufacturer that Apple would be emulating, investing in their own controllers, etc, and certainly not leaving out security features with no plan.
The next person to win a fight for a most exclusive position may decide it should be of substantially less value.. But usually only as a tactic to get the position.
We clearly double blind instead of single blind because we are all as concerned about researcher bias as the writer of the article. Their beliefs about our beliefs on where the errors are introduced in single blind studies seem at best presumptuous.
It's extremely easy to enforce with taxes that ensure the company is paying at least 1X0% of the highest market rate for the position. If they don't find an alternative to paying it is a necessary hire.
A google rank at zero and lots of 2 hop routes to your site that google can either penalize for being an accurate historical record or not is better than a rank of zero and a domain that has never been in historical artifacts.