As a customer, Amazon is wonderful. But it needs to treat its employees better.
Fix this, Jeff.
3,884 karma · joined July 22, 2009
Fix this, Jeff.
Trading bitcoin is speculation. It's not investing (where fundamental analysis can be useful to evaluate assets). But a lot of money can be made (and lost) by speculating. It just depends on your risk profile.
1. Live within your means. Spend less than you earn. But it's okay to take a vacation and splurge a little, too. Or if you need to buy something like a suit that stretches you a bit think of it as an investment for your career.
2. Use credit cards responsibly. They can be great for their rewards programs, but you can easily get into trouble with them. Be very careful.
3. From a financial perspective, it's never too early to think about retirement. Take advantange of your employer's 401k program if it's offered. Additionally, setup and contribute to a Roth IRA retirement fund through Vanguard or Fidelity.
4. Buying a house makes sense as a long-term investment. Location will primarily determine how good of an investment it will be (which sometimes is hard to predict into the future).
5. In terms of what to invest in, buy a low-cost index fund from Vanguard or Fidelity (e.g. S&P 500) and make monthly or quarterly contributions to it. And don't touch it (i.e. sell), especially in a downturn.
I think it's somewhat realistic to envision a future where there is substantial transaction value of legitimate, legal uses. Maybe that future isn't probable, but the idea that the price of bitcoin would ever reach its current price seemed rather unlikely at one point, too.
I plan to never use Uber again.
VC doesn't work like that. In order to survive (and prosper) as a VC it takes picking and investing in Apples, Googles, Facebooks, Amazons, Airbnbs, etc.
I could be wrong, but this feels like there's too much money chasing too few good companies.
That seems to be true even in Silicon Valley itself.
But if I owned the WSJ (or any publication) and a subscriber shared an article here-and-there on a forum I personally wouldn't be mad. Perhaps doing so would even lead to more subscribers.
Volvo Cars said it has agreed to supply Uber Technologies Inc. with a fleet of 24,000 self-driving taxis beginning in 2019—one of the first and biggest commercial orders for such vehicles.
The deal between Volvo, owned by China’s Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Co., and Uber was disclosed Monday as a framework agreement without financial terms. Such an order, though, would account for about 4.5% of Volvo’s current total sales, based on 2016 figures, and is estimated to be worth just over $1 billion, a person familiar with the situation said.
The automobile industry and many big tech firms have promised broad deployment of robot cars in the near future, but all of the technology, regulation and legal framework needed for the practical use of such vehicles aren’t yet in place. Still, industry executives have predicted with more and more confidence that companies could have such cars on the road in a matter of years, not decades.
Other car makers have inked smaller, less specific deals to develop and produce autonomous cars, but Monday’s agreement represents one of the most concrete deals between two big players in the field for the production of a large number of real cars. The promised delivery date--as little as two years away--is also one of the first hard, deadlines that a significant automaker has set for rolling out a working model.
Volvo has had a long-running partnership with Uber to develop self-driving cars, though it hit a setback earlier this year. Pilot projects around the U.S. were temporarily halted after an early version of a Volvo-Uber-developed vehicle flipped on its side after an accident in Tempe, Arizona. Police said the incident was caused by a human driver of another vehicle, not the Uber self-driving car.
“We believe this is a new segment, a new business,” said Volvo Cars Chief Executive Hakan Samuelsson. Jeff Miller, Uber’s head of auto alliances, said the agreement “puts us on a path towards mass produced self-driving vehicles at scale.”
Under the agreement, Volvo will supply Uber with what Mr. Samuelsson called a “base car,” based on Volvo’s popular XC90, a luxury sport-utility vehicle that seats up to seven passengers. Delivery of the vehicles is set to begin in 2019, with Uber calling up vehicles each month through 2021.
“The base vehicles incorporate all necessary safety, redundancy and core autonomous driving technologies that are required for Uber to add its own self-driving technology,” Mr. Samuelsson said. “Uber will adapt the software to make it ride-hailing.”
The first taxis from the deal will be built in Volvo’s factory in Sweden. But the company plans to produce the vehicles in the U.S. as well, where Volvo is building a new factory just outside Charleston, South Carolina.
The current version of the XC90, which is available for sale today, already includes advance autonomous features, such as systems to keep the car in its lane and maintain the proper distance to another vehicle traveling ahead. It also features collision avoidance that helps prevent low-speed fender benders in stop-and-go traffic.
Other car manufacturers are racing to develop their own models of self-driving vehicles, often in ventures with parts suppliers and big technology companies.
Why Your Next Car May Look Like a Living Room With driverless cars moving closer to reality, car makers and designers are imagining a future where car interiors look more like a high-tech living room. Photo: Morgan Anderson/Yanfeng Daimler AG, which makes Mercedes-Benz luxury cars, and auto supplier Bosch GmbH, for instance, said in April that they would jointly develop their own robot taxi. Daimler has said the vehicle would become available at the beginning of the next decade.
Daimler and Uber said in January they would join forces, with the German company agreeing to introduce self-driving cars compatible with Uber. Waymo, the self-driving tech unit of Google-parent Alphabet Inc., has agreed to take several hundred minivans from Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV, part of its autonomous driving program.
Nutonomy Inc., a Cambridge, Mass. startup, has said it wants to put a fleet of robot taxis on the street by next year. It first began testing Renault and Mitsubishi vehicles, in Singapore. In May, it agreed to work with Peugeot maker Groupe PSA of France, to integrate its software into a Peugeot SUV.
Volvo and Uber agreed in 2016 to jointly develop more advanced self-driving car systems. The accident in Arizona was a blow to public perception of the pace of development of the program and such vehicles generally. But police said at the time that the Volvo-Uber car was not at fault. The accident occurred when the driver of another vehicle committed a moving violation, ramming the self-driving car and causing it to flip on its side.
There were no injuries, but Uber temporarily halted its three robot taxi tests in San Francisco, Tempe, and Pittsburgh. Those pilot programs have resumed.
—Tim Higgins in San Francisco contributed to this article.
Write to William Boston at william.boston@wsj.com
I browse the rest of the NYT maybe a few times a week, but I largely just read the one section I like multiple times a day.
There's just a lot of competition amongst these big digital media organizations, most of which have many employees. And the article's author is right that they've been largely supported by VC money.
I think there is still room for good digital content that you can charge for (e.g. Stratechery), but creators will need to focus on a niche that customers find compelling enough to want to pay for (and I don't think finding one is that hard). (I'd also immediately pay for Matt Levine's Money Stuff column if he ever went independent.)
But most should be done with very small operations and staffs. The great thing about it is that digital content has such favorable marginal cost dynamics.
I think many people don't get the help they need partly because they feel embarrassed (as well as other reasons). I think that's what the stigma has caused. There's a negative connotation around talking to a professional about things going on in your life or mind. Often times, jokes are made about "shrinks" and such, which I think only exacerbate the situation.
And I'd like to comment on your last paragraph. While I think it's fair and up to the individual to keep whatever they want in their life private, I also think in many cases talking about it out in the open, in environment that not only supports it, but where it also feels normal to discuss it, is the ultimate wish.
I'm of the opinion that I think most everyone would benefit from talking to someone good* about things that are going on in their lives. While there's a spectrum to mental illness and health, I'd like for society to get to a place where discussing those kinds of things is as normal as discussing a movie you just saw.
To get to that point, I think the stigma around mental health will need to change. Talking about something like a breakup with someone is a common experience. If you tell someone you've broken up with your partner, then people don't judge you in the way they judge you for improving your mental health by, say, seeking professional help. In fact, with regard to the breakup, many people offer to listen to you or to make time for you - to help you.
That doesn't seem to normally be the case with mental illness or health (and yet I think it's all related). And I hope that changes.
And I think one of the best ways for that to happen is to have more-and-more high-profile people talking about it out in the open - even just challenges they've faced personally - from something like a breakup to extreme mental illness.
I wish for this partly because I think it will make people more empathetic and understanding toward each other, which I think will make the world a better place.
*Like teachers, not everyone (professional or not) is good at it, nor the right fit.
Rybolovlev and Bouvier have been in a legal battle over their business dealings (including the da Vinci sale): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bouvier_Affair
If you want to read a long-form story on Bouvier (which does touch on this situation), I'd recommend this: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/02/08/the-bouvier-af...
I wonder if kids not yet on Snap (because they're too young), will go directly to Instagram for its stories feature in addition to pictures, etc., or if it'll still acquire those future social media users. I think it's unlikely to grab many new adult users who are only now getting into social media.
If I were the head of Snap, I'd scrap the spectacles operation and spend time thinking about, and experimenting with, the future of media and social media.
Perhaps there's an iPhone-like opportunity.
I also think it needs to make its product way faster and more intuitive to use.
-I loved this book for its humor, everyday practicality, how relatable it felt even without having a background in physics or knowledge about the pranks and experiments he conducted. As well as the book being well-written in the sense that it reads as if you're sitting on the couch with him as he's telling you stories about his life, all with a child-like sense of wonder and enthusiasm about the world.
THE $12 MILLION STUFFED SHARK BY DON THOMPSON
-I'm interested in the high-finance and fine-art worlds and this book discussed how they both go together - money and art - in an informative, quick-paced way.
THE BUY SIDE BY TURNEY DUFF
-For its humor, honesty, and how well written it was in terms of it being a page turner while also providing you with an insightful account about the high-finance industry.
MOLLY'S GAME BY MOLLY BLOOM
-It was an entertaining, quick-paced read about the private, high-stakes poker industry with an assortment of participants.
MONEYBALL, LIAR'S POKER & THE BIG SHORT BY MICHAEL LEWIS
-I thought they were all entertaining reads, while also being insightful about their respective subjects.
STEVE JOBS BY WALTER ISAACSON
-It was an illuminating read to me.
- - -
Separately, these books are on my list to read if anyone has opinions about them:
-Ghost in the Wires by Kevin Mitnick
-Principles by Ray Dalio
-A Man For All Markets by Edward Thorp
I wonder if many people have had problems with TransferWise or think it's a bad product. I've never used it.
Aside from that, I'd like to see the social stigma around mental health eliminated. It's viewed as a positive thing to care about, and work toward, better physical health. I wish that were true for mental health. I wish improving your mental health was as normal as going to the gym.
I think it was primarily due to three things: (1) it didn't get released until 5 years after the iPod; (2) while many people loathe iTunes it was widely used and liked by everyday people, and it was introduced 8.5 months before the iPod released; (3) Microsoft wasn't viewed as a "cool" consumer brand.
I don't know what the effects are of them (including this one), but my gut tells me they'll only increase over time; perhaps the severity of them as well.
It's honestly making me re-consider my use of the internet, technology, and electronics.
What's the future hold with regard to security, breaches, and keeping our data and information safe?