Handshake agreements will most likely fall apart in time due to changing needs and personalities. This is why contracts are absolutely needed, especially for the size of business Sriracha was involved in.
Except for the court ruling of 13 million in favor of Underwood Ranch, the article isn’t very clear in the amount by which the 2 companies disagreed so difficult to say if it was purely a clash of the 2 owner’s personalities or some other fundamental change in market that brought this sudden schism.
The kind of confidence that the author goes over in this article is rare. Such confidence generally comes from having a solid backing: financial, social, emotional, etc. Most people don’t have such backing.
Lucky are those who have such true confidence without much backing as that is truly a gift from nature.
When AAPL and NVDA breached the 3T mark I was convinced that they’ve hit a ceiling. But, time has shown that I was wrong. I think any valuation is possible now.
So what were the same folks who downloaded Audio Hijack doing on versions 1.5 or older at the end of the 15 day trial period? Download it again?
It’s great that they were able to see higher revenues and take the company forward, but I’m wondering if there were additional features that were only on the paid version and not on trial version which helped with retention and growth.
And how many businesses do you estimate have been killed or eliminated because of unchecked m&a? Expanding the data set to include non-tech industries indicates strongly that it's not always the case that a big monopoly will eventually fail. Healthcare for example is filled with instances of bigger companies acquiring smaller ones and killing the competition to their product, a quick Google search will show you that.
Not commenting on the ethical side of it, in many instances rentals are just a side income, the real value is in the increasing price of the house due to demand outpacing supply. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37855625 for past discussion on this.
This is an epidemic in my community. At least twice a month I walk over to my neighbors and deliver their mail left in my mailbox. They do the same to me. We’ve complained to the local post office, but they’re dealing with staffing issues and can’t guarantee anything.
I feel it’s a major invasion of privacy. I don’t want to know stuff about my neighbors like who they bank with, have student loans with or which doctors they go to. They also find out those things about me. But not much we can do about it.
This article seems to contradict itself. It notes that tax system is flawed in favor or inheritors but goes on to suggest that taxing the inheritance or property will address this issue. Why would those not be tilted to benefit the inheritors?
History of mankind has been shaped by housing. It also is the most common and long lasting vehicle of investment, primarily because how easy it is to pass it down to descendants. It's not going away anytime soon.
Assuming fixed rate mortgage, in most places the rate at which rent can grow is faster than rate of property taxes+insurance can grow. So the cost of ownership will generally be cheaper than renting. Not to mention increasing equity in an asset with time
I could not read the entire article due to paywall, but I think tipping less will actually drive businesses to pay a proper wage to the people providing the service. I try to tip 5% more than the expected amount as I am aware that people working in many of these jobs are not paid enough. However, its absolutely ridiculous when I am asked to leave a tip on self checkout kiosks. That should be illegal.
Why is it legal for the consumer to be on the hook for mistakes by the company? They did not move the customer to the right plan, put them on a service he didn't ask for and now customer's the one who has to pay for it? Seems like many companies could just do this and inflate their earnings.
With respect to car servicing, I'm getting a deja vu feeling. Like smartphones have made it almost impossible to get a phone repaired by third party companies, car makers are making it very hard to get their cars serviced anywhere other than their dealerships where they can overcharge everything. With so much (unnecessary?) technology in the cars these days, it's easy for them to slap more conditions on the owners and lock in services for years.
The worse part:"We kindly request you keep this report between you and Zendesk". After being notified of a problem on their side, them ignoring it, now they want to keep things hush hush? That's exactly what the author did in the first place, but they chose to brush it aside. That itself is highly unprofessional. With such an attitude, I'm not surprised that they did not pay out the bounty.
How much one likes Atlas Shrugged may depend on age as well. When I read it at age of 20, it was the best book I had ever read and almost a Bible for me. At 25, it had some great points that were worth adopting. At 30, it was mostly a fantasy, but entertaining. At 38, it is just not worth the time.
As with other industries, there is a steady increase in demand but not enough supply. Make it easier for accredited universities to be setup and let the free market forces drive the cost of an undergraduate degree down.
Tangential to this topic, but are there publicly traded companies that pay only in stocks? I'm curious to know if someone who gets paid only in stocks will come out ahead in terms of taxes they owe than someone getting a comparable base pay.
A few of them
1. Health is best wealth.
2. Don't forget about the high risk when chasing high rewards.
3. If it's too good to be true, it's probably isn't good at all.
Why does this headline make it sound that it's a contradiction? Isn't it because Elon Musk is willing to take drastic actions like in the headline to improve stock price in the short term that shareholders voted for his pay?
Would you have tolerated that if you getting paid 1.5 or 2x instead of 0.6x? Maybe you wouldn't, but on average many would be ok with that environment for higher pay.
One interesting data point is that places that pay higher than the market on average have much higher rate of retention as well. Barring some egregious conditions, many will tolerate an non-ideal environment for better than market pay.
The worse pay is what adds on to the feeling of the job being terrible. As much as many want to claim, its not very satisfying to slog away and ship an elegant product for peanuts. When the pay is lower than what is the standard, it's always going to make the job feel terrible.
This tug of war between individual satisfaction and monetization exists in all industries and not just SW engineering. There are very few areas where there is an overlap between solving problems benefits all of humanity while being able to monetize it for a sustainable business(finding a cure for cancer for ex). It's not the fault of any industry or economy etc, it's just a mismatch of expectations vs reality.