In short the only entities that benefits from this is Microsoft who gets more revenue, and Facebook, who gets more user data.
The users are simply being literally sold.
851 karma · joined February 13, 2013
In short the only entities that benefits from this is Microsoft who gets more revenue, and Facebook, who gets more user data.
The users are simply being literally sold.
So the “heartless” landlord situation may be a bit more nuanced than these articles seem to indicate. Where it’s legal to evict, landlords might be looking at their own finances and feeling like they don’t have a choice either.
My main point still stands though. How is there not anyone willing to take another shot at competing here, the world's love affair with Google is no doubt over. DuckDuckGo is relatively popular even though it doesn't seem to offer anything truly original in the search space.
A truly new way to search that helps fight the monopolistic search behavior would be very useful. It feels like something Mozilla foundation would be into if they didn't receive so much funding from Google.
It's interesting that the "brand new" search engine seems like a dead industry. All of the newer competitors aren't starting from scratch and are just aggregating together results in new ways or focusing on privacy. Is it really that impossible to bring into existence a new search engine. For the vast majority of queries Google seems to only return major brands anyway.
It got me to the interview stage often and then it was up to whether I knew the nonsense whiteboard leetcode situation, which I've never been particularly good at.
If I got the job it was because they were pre-sold on step one's effectiveness I've always felt like.
Classically you would do this with Tilemill for rasters which was amazing software, if crashy. And since we’re on a mapbox thread what I think put them on the map. I wish it was still actively developed and adapted for vectors.
If for example Newsom or SF pushes back dates or asks for draconian style "masks all times, 2 people per conference room" or whatever vs. what has been forced to "work fine" for all these companies, people will just realize this is silly to try and put the "genie back in the bottle".
Status quo pull works against returning to offices I believe more and more as this drags on.
https://money.cnn.com/2008/03/21/news/companies/visabanks/in...
Visa / MC remind me a bit of Ticketmaster in that they've got parties on both sides defending them because of kickbacks. You charge the merchant the "interchange fee" plus some amount and that fee goes back to the "card issuing" bank, so they like the system.
The merchant passes on the cost (generally) to the consumer, so they don't really notice, and the ease of moving the money in 99% of cases means everyone is happy.
Seems like a struggle to get to profitability. With the ratio of closing the gap slowing, sure looks like it's getting harder. This is what bugs me about these companies, after years of running the business and doing 1 Billion in revenue it's still a coin flip whether they will ever be profitable. How is this any different from the first "Internet Boom" except that they've been floated to a much bigger revenue number by VC losses.
So now the VCs want return on investment. The public is getting a chance to buy, and some will, and the VCs make out, the founders probably already did by selling to the VCs, but where is the value creation? Just a shell game.
I imagine the search works fine, but what's the fun in that.
As overused and made to mean breaking the law, disrupting is a kind of exciting thing to be a part of.
You’re changing the game, reinventing an industry or something of those sorts.
Regulatory-tech, what’s the world changing story there? We help you stay in business while the ever increasing amount of paperwork and scrutiny increases?
Everything follows what came before it, and what came before and is paying off now turned out to be plenty of dishonestly in business in search of returns. In a word greed.
Now this next “generation” of startups is going to pay for it.
In addition you have 6% Realtors fees to sell plus staging and being out of the house for open houses etc. the math just doesn’t add up.
Once you know that your job gets easier, you now need to figure out how to get the team from the place they were to the place that the executives want them to be, remove blockers etc.
Don’t try so much to quickly enact processes as much as listen to what’s working and not working currently.
Could they not just without any further cash infusion continue to lose similar amounts for the next three years and be cash solvent. Does that then not give a big incentive to figure out how to become profitable in the near term?
Easier to view than the various other sources, especially on mobile.
Let's say there's only 10% of employees or some very low number. Would then the Real Estate deals put in place vs. the Revenue received for re-leasing them pencil out positive?