When someone says 'china' hacked these companies, what does that even mean? The chinese version of the NSA, or FBI hacked these companies? Can anyone shed some light on this?
The problem with this statement is it worked, and gives me great hope in this company that they were smart enough to risk it. The FCC said no, you cannot launch the satellite you spent years developing for reasons that ended up being completely wrong. So, what is a company to do? Launch anyways and accept the backlash as they had no other option. Once the satellites launched, they were able to effectively track them and the company got approved for more launches but this time without the 900k fine.
As long as the regulations of the US don’t make sense, smart people will continue to break them in the spirit of innovation. Will this breaking of regulation always end in relatively little consequence? No, and soon the FCC or another regulatory body will feel obligated to make an example out of some company with serious charges and I will feel bad for the CEO and company that is used for an example
whats Stripe mean? Whats Google mean? Whats Uber mean? Paul Graham has an essay about how the name of your company doesn't really mean anything, and you should always pick a name with the .com available.
I've often thought of what humanity would due given an apocalyptic scenario, and individually what I would do. I've never thought about creating an apocalypse drive, but am now considering making one! I'd be curious to see/ compare peoples full apocalypse drive.
Lyft was the one to fight the battle of having 'ridesharing' become a thing. Uber didn't mind if the decision went one way or another as they already had a lockdown on the "professional driver market".
>> Instead of buying 19-month-old scooter company for $2B, it is spending money on its core value proposition.
Lyft aquired a scooter company Motivate, and announced the plans in June about their bike and scooter strat.
>>At some point, investors might not hand over Uber any more cash.
Lyft has raised 4.9B. It's the unicorns of Unicorns with a burn rate to match.
I agree with the OP, am pessemistic of an IPO, and would say it has the possibility of failure. I don't think that will happen, but an IPO flop of this scale would have major repercussion on the funding market in general. Again with the Hauwei arrest today, and the stock market in a major flux as tensions rise with China it has added risk.
Not the OP, but it is not 'unrealized' as you say. Read enlightenment now by steven pinkerton. He has a whole book about how we are currently 'realizing' this 'future hypothetical utopia'
>Microsoft wasn't over when Gates died?
When did Gates die?
On a more serious note, they left after significant pass over and forsight that they were stepping down. They were both profitable, and they were not forced to step down. When Steve Jobs left the first time he was forced to, Apple almost went out of business.
Suprising to see here that the majority seem to be anti-Musk. "He's guilty, send him to jail" without allowing evidence to come forward that these statements were false.
>"the matter should be quickly resolved as they review the information they have received."
If anything the public statement says the opposite. I actually believe there may have been some email, or conversations about a buyout of Tesla. Wouldn't be the first time, Google almost bought Tesla in 2008 during the financial crisis.
the OP's post, and your post are not mutually exclusive. I think you both point out inherent flaws in the term "freedom of press" as it is currently understood in society. His point is that they are incentivied not burn bridges with large corps, and your point is they can say whatever the f* they want with zero governmental oversight.
There are a number of reasons I disagree with the conclusions reached in this article. For one, what the author calls 'rent-seeking behavior' (getting favorable regulation) is because a lot of the entrepreneurship we see in America is fighting old incumbent industry's [1] (SpaceX, Uber, Airbnb). Obtaining favorable regulation is a necessity for these companies to stay alive. The arguments also suffer from the 'fixed wealth fallacy' in which inequality is deemed as an inherently bad thing. It is in many ways a very good thing [2]
[1] The upstarts by Brad stone. A book about the rise of Airbnb and uber that shows the entrenched regulations they had to fight against the hotel and taxi industries.
Exactly. If a small business doesn't use open table or duplex, no problem - I can just use duplex to schedule the reservation for me. Open table requires buy in from the restaurant, duplex doesn't.
Can they though? China isn't some totalitarian dictatorship that some of the west seem to think they are. If they ceded this 'business as usual' measure, it was because the jobs, investment, and technology that results is worth it. China likes Tesla, and alternative energy. Their alternative energy investments have been substantial for a number of years.
In alot of industries and examples, only when competition is introduced does innovation happen. E.G. Manhattan project (hitler can't build the bomb first), Apollo (A rocket is just a bomb delivery system, Russia can't have dominance). These examples are on a governmental scale, but the same thing happens in industries where startups are fighting to compete against entrenched competitors. I truly believe having a "nationalistic" mindset when it comes to technological advancement is the best way to develop a "humanistic" world. Innovation, technological advancement, and a higher standard of living for all spring forth from competition and necessity.
In a train I have to physically go to the train station, park my car, walk and find which train/subway to hop on, sit next to other people on a crowded, confined space, possibly get off and get on another train going to a different destination, get off the the train and walk/ get a rental car to where i want to actually go.
Compare the above to hop in my car, drive to the freeway, turn on self-driving, turn off self-driving once i get off the freeway, find parking near where i'm going and walk in.
As a society, we've done alot more in the name of convenience.
I don't really understand what the big deal is here. All this data was given to facebook. Ads are inherently propaganda, how is the use of this data any different? If I decide in my terms of service that i can use your data however i want, including mining your messages and selling it to an evil dictator, i should be able to do that. If you agree, you are free to use my plateform, if not, thats fine too, you can't. me, and a group of people whom i've paid have developed this app, how can you restrict my right to do as i please with everything that comes out of it? If i want to shut down facebook tomorrow, i can. If it's against what is in my terms of service, sue the living shit out of me, and force me to update my terms to reflect reality or delete the app.
I think there is a key point that will result in the freedom of being able to drive being stripped long before assault rifles. Imagine if i create a private road from SF to LA and say that only self driving cars can drive on it. The vehicles on this road are all inter-connected, allowing them to travel at speeds in excess of 150+ MPH, and since the road that i've created is completely flat it still allows it to be a smooth ride. But if i allow cars who's actions can't be predicted (Car driven by a human), it then becomes impossible to safely drive at these speeds. So me, and the road owner, bans cars driven by people on my private toll road. As this becomes more prelevent, i will no longer have the want or need to drive my own car because then it takes me 6 Hours to get to LA instead of 2. All the while there no reason for me to get rid of my assault rifle, because i really enjoy firing it out the window of my self-driving car at 150MPH on the way to LA.
I think the OP above is being practical as opposed to cynical. TBH, most of the demographic that followed him on FB also have insta and twitter. Most of the people i know in my age group (college age - 24) don't even use FB anymore. Theres a little joke that as soon as your parents start to use the platform its time to jump ship. On top of that, its created articles like this - which has led to even more publicity. I also wasn't aware that any of these FB pages existed but i follow them all on insta and twitter.
Don't you think Astrobiology is reliant on peoples faith that interesting results will follow from the capital investments required? I think thats one of the main things that are pushing astrobiology forward. If no one gave a fuck, or no one had any faith in the field, there would be no capital investments. I honestly don't understand the sentiment in the comment - or why you would caution against having faith?
Out of curiosity, why did you leave? This has not been my experience with most founders, so it sounds like you hit the jackpot. Would you also be willing to share what company this is?
I agree with you on all your points. However, you last two sentences are not necessary. To be honest, the first time i read your comment i though the same thing. Only on a re-read did i see your last little bit of the message addresses that argument.
It represents kind of mindset. If early on in life(13-14 when grades start to matter)you wanted to excel in education and are willing to go to a top university where you are crushed with workload, it demonstrates a sense of drive and passion. You definitely can have that same drive and passion and go to a very mediocre school, but there are less of you statistically. you may even have more self-discipline since you must go above and beyond you peers, but from a recruiters perspective, when they are looking for top applicants it becomes a statistical game really fast.
If it was on the BigBank to always prove that their identity was indeed stolen, it would quickly become unmanageable. People would commit fraud in the opposite direction, by getting a huge loan from some a bank and claiming that their identity is stolen. I'm sure it would be easier than stealing someones identity to do it, and it would obviously involve some necessary actions to avoid being caught but this would drive loan rates through the roof for the average citizen to make up for all the fraud occurring. I agree with you ideologically, but in practicality i do not believe it would work.
Once the company goes public, the amount of money they raised is included in their finances, and not counted as a round. Take a look at the Amazon finances and you'll see how much they have raised on loans. The higher the stock price, the better loan pricing they can secure. This is the strategy that Tesla employs as well.
What would be the economic implications of changing US policy to allow Stateside based companies to bring back overseas capital at treasury rate tax costs? I can't really fathom the implications here cause i'm not to privy on the economic theory behind this. Obviously their would be some kind of inflation due to all the money that would flood into the US market, but that would be good for all the corporations with stock, resulting in more money inflooding. But the investment in US based industry would receive a considerable boost, which would be potentially good. I don't really see a downside here, so why does current economic policy dictate such a punishing tax cost to bring overseas cash into the stateside market again?
We have exactly what your explaining in the form of taxes, and the outcomes are terrible. We spend $1B on a healthcare website, that other companies have duplicated for a mere decimal point of the price. Not only that, but it actually turned out worse, cause now it's mandatory to have Healthcare, and for those who can't afford the "affordable health care plan", now have an additional payments in "penalties" for not being able to afford it and they STILL don't have health insurance. This is just one point of a thousand were socialistic practices are completely contrary to the original point. Let the people who create enough value to the world decide where they want to spend their money.