Well the news media write about a lot of things but that's different to being newsworthy. Readers decide that. It's why Yahoo's homepage might have a story about a wounded war veteran returning home next to one of Kim and Kayne. When Kim and Kayne get 10x or 100x the shares it's not Yahoo's fault right?
But let's say you were asked to accept an award on behalf of your company from a group that had a troubled history of anti-semitic sentiment and it was thought that, amongst this group, there were still large swaths of members who held anti-semitic beliefs. Would you feel patronized and start job searching?
I think because the network effect is a fundamental foundation of social networks. Think of all the SN's that have come and gone. It appears you can't really remain static with a non/slow growing user base. Eventually, something else comes along that has a broader range of people making the content better; you stop opening the older, more static app.
I think the confusion here is you've assumed I meant that Twitter needs to become more like FB from a content perspective. I mean from a usability perspective. My father would like to follow along with current affairs/breaking news/sports and other celebrities.....he just can't get it to work the way he wants.
Twitter is a poster child for why diversity is key. Not racial, but socioeconomic. Twitter is very popular with people who have reached a certain threshold of technical competence. After that though it falls away quickly. They needed to really hire non SF based techno geeks and advisors to change the product. It was pretty telling when older people on their board never used it.
My Dad loves FB; he's kind of the family stalker now where no picture or comment goes unnoticed! He really wanted to use Twitter but has given up after multiple failed attempts. I think that's their problem in a nutshell. He so wanted it to work.
The role of CTO varies so greatly from company to compan . Some are hands on making major decisions. Others are almost academic; looking 18+ months out and responsible for understanding big trends et . Not sure which is the case here. Does anyone know?
This is kind of like Uber firing Travis with a "we operate in a highly regulatory space. Compliance is our oxygen and so Travis, who has constantly flouted regulations, is gone"
It's interesting you mention Canada. Canada, like Australia, had a wonderful 10 - 15 years selling huge quantities of natural resources to China. Weaker societies, like Brazil, have basically gone off the edge of a financial cliff with the significant retraction in China. Australia and Canada are better prepared but nonetheless I'm not surprised to see hard cost cutting decisions having to be made. Live by the sword....
Wait, heroin isn't popular the way FB is. There aren't a billion heroin users (or whatever) on the planet. _For those people who use heroin_ it might be very popular but by far the majority of people are deciding not to use it. Unlike FB.
Yes I think it would fail if you tried to get too literal. But the original thread was the "I wonder how much more productive our lives would or would not be without FB" It was in that broader context that I made my comment.
All arguments for and against FB can pretty much be applied to the internet overall. Given the undeniable popularity and usage of FB I think it's pretty clear it's been a net positive on society. (I'm fine with rebuttals; just make sure your argument couldn't also be used to rebut people having access to the internet in general)
I think it's 3 things (I have teenagers about to get permits)
1) Parents don't let their kids drive or walk anywhere due to safety concerns (real or unfounded) So kids have built in chauffeurs and thus a lot less motivation to drive anywhere.
2) Uber
3) Work returning to city centers.
Teenagers have parents driving them everywhere. They use Uber at college and then get a job in a city. I guess they could take on the expense and headache of car ownership but there's very little upside.
QE works well. It's just limited in how much impact it can have because it's monetary policy. Fiscal policy is the other half of the equation and one that is much more politically charged. Bernanke did what he could with the tools at his disposal at a time when government was seized with deep partisanship. That's now coming home to roost as liquidity is removed from the system. Luckily, or appropriately, it's happening as unemployment is low and there is finally some upward wage pressure. You only have to look at many countries in Europe to understand what the US would have looked like had we not had the monetary firehose, with all of its imperfections, opened.
This was my biggest takeaway. Who does he have review these? No one told him how bad this was academically and optics wise? He needs to broaden the inner circle.
I feel like the entire third party charger thing is an overstated red herring. Bolt just jumped us from 70 miles by default for non Tesla to 200 miles. Next jump in 3-5 years is 350 - 500? So once or twice a year you worry about needing to charge away from home? And that assumes you only have an electric car vs one of each. Seems so edge case (even at 200) but I understand why it can dominate the discussion.
Somewhere, buried beneath all that sarcasm and hyperbole, I'm sure you were striving to make the age old "I don't like these asthetics and feel comfortable speaking on behalf of all humanity"
"You still top out". Actually that's pretty unique to sw development vs other white collar roles and is not discussed enough when it comes to understanding higher levels of disillusion. SW developers are basically having their mod life crisis at 28 or 32 when they realize they've mostly flatlined unless they go into management.
Where seed = less than US $1 million raised? Then it would depend on how many of the founders are good developers. I would say 3, 2, 1% based on whether you're the 1, 2nd or 3rd (including the founders) FT developer/s. Salary should be 70/80/85% of market inverse to the equity amount. If they're offering less than 70% market then I'd add 1% for every 10% delta. (ie 50% of market cash = 5% equity)
Well we have to remember that when the stock market goes up 30% this year (or falls 30% this year) that's not inflation or deflation. That's a marketplace at work. Real estate is also an asset class that rises or falls. But those changes aren't inflation. That's market forces at work (supply and demand)
What real estate and currency have in common, both being asset classes, is that they're a store of value. Currency has other properties (medium of exchange, unit of account) that Real Estate does not. People aren't meaningfully trading real estate as a medium of exchange or using it as a unit of account. So it's not even close to a currency.
OP might mean that Real Estate has become a leading store of value, on par with currency, due to the factors he outlines.
To be fair only some economists thought QE would be inflationary. Many understood it would not. And why would you call real estate a currency and not an asset class? Most of your comments indicate you think it's a highly attractive asset class vs really a currency.
Generally if it's an engineering focused set of founders they're most likely to get sales wrong. And sales driven leadership tends to get engineering hiring wrong. To way over simplify, both sides think "Well if we 2x headcount we'll 2x revenue/new features" They don't make that mistake on the discipline they came up with.
I hope folks realize that's ok. Mixpanel made a conscious decision to start at $150 and understands that for certain people theirs no ROI at that price point. I mean Apple could sell a $300 iPhone but they'll leave that to Android.