MegaButts

> I heard from friends that they had to sign an NDA just to interview

Is this not standard practice? I honestly can't remember the last time I didn't sign an NDA before interviewing.

> I wouldn't be surprised if in a week or two they don't feel like they dodged a massive bullet.

I'm guessing you didn't mean this to be a double negative? In other words:

> I would be surprised if in a week or two they feel like they dodged a massive bullet

but I suspect you meant the opposite?

Let's say they sold 200,000 for the Xmas season - that would put Oculus Quest sales at around 600,000.

https://gamedaily.biz/article/1337/report-oculus-quest-has-s...

And it seems VR sales (EDIT: shipments) are hovering at around 6,000,000 a year (this tends to include the crappy VR headsets that are sometimes given away for free with high end phones).

https://www.androidcentral.com/nearly-half-all-vr-headsets-s...

This sounds like a lot...but it might not be. To put things in perspective, the Kinect sold around 20,000,000 units and was considered a failure by Microsoft which is why they abandoned it. I think the parallels between the Kinect and VR is worth noting, since most are really accessories to something else (or used for very niche purposes).

VR definitely isn't mainstream yet, but it might get there in a few years. I think Half Life Alyx will be an interesting juncture and maybe even a make-or-break point for VR.

> Then, break the bank on marketing (which is all luxury brands really are anyway these days.)

Maybe to the layperson, but enthusiasts can easily spot the differences between a VW and an Audi and are happy to pay (or not) for it. And no, just because VW and Audi share the MQB platform does not mean they are the same cars. The most notable difference being how VW purposefully gimped their infotainment system so as not to cannibalize Audi sales. There are other obvious differences in terms of build quality and choice of materials (and sometimes they just throw in a new engine, like the RS variants). I would love to have a 5 cylinder engine, and no affordable car is offering that.

> the hellcat. Its not even in the top 20 fastest cars, and most importantly its a loss leader with custom engine work, custom drivetrain, custom paint, etc...that is shared by no model.

It's a drag car, and it's very good at what it was built for. I would never buy a drag car, but I know people that do. If you want a RWD drag car, the Hellcat Redeye is a favorite amongst enthusiasts, and many pay the high asking price for it. The part you're missing is these people buy the car for the engine, so it has to have a custom engine. Naturally aspirated engines are just more fun because they don't have turbo lag and they make an amazing sound that can't be replicated by a 4-banger. Porsche got ridiculed for making a more fuel efficient Cayman using a 4 cylinder engine, and had to go back to offering a larger naturally aspirated version that really doesn't make the car much faster (it doesn't even make more torque) but it does make it more enjoyable. People are paying tens of thousands of dollars more just for the larger engine.

https://www.motortrend.com/cars/porsche/718-cayman/2020/2020...

> people want reliable cars with good gas mileage and good performance like the Ford Focus and its ST counterpart which were well executed.

Most people do, but enthusiasts don't. You really can't talk about the two groups as though they're the same, because they almost never want the same things. Once you stop building cars for enthusiasts you end up in Nissan's position (although merging with Renault is definitely the main culprit of their downfall).

https://youtu.be/q3_2R5bmFbk

> Fast forward to 2015 and the auto industry learned bupkis from their crow dinner at congress begging for handouts in 2008.

Now that's something we can agree on.

I agree with everything you said, and was merely pointing out the evidence is far from overwhelming (or even conclusive, in my opinion).

If we're going to talk about making dangerous statements, mentioning that antidepressants are effective while ignoring the fact they increase suicide for some people seems a lot more reckless to me. Of course, you don't know if they will do that until after you are already taking them.

https://www.bmj.com/content/358/bmj.j3697/rr-4

Since at this point it seems unlikely I really "have no dog in this fight," for what it's worth I think antidepressants likely help more people than they harm, but I do think their positive effects are exaggerated by health professionals.

I think people should be allowed to share their opinions, even if they're controversial. Just because you disagree doesn't mean he's wrong (nor am I saying he's right).

I have no dog in this fight, but you don't have to Google much to find studies that cast doubt on the efficacy of anti-depressants.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/325767

> The cost of living in a lot of parts of Cali in generally are ridiculous and some of the most expensive in the country.

A lot of these arguments could be made about New York, specifically Manhattan. There are people there that can genuinely afford it, and there are people that struggle financially because they want to be there (for whatever reason).

There are obviously lots of people in the Bay Area struggling to make ends meet, including some software engineers. But the reality is most talented people here are so well-paid it's not an issue. You're talking about $120k salaries, I'm talking about $100k signing bonuses. Of course the average engineer here isn't swimming in money, but there are plenty of people who make so much more money here that it's a wise financial decision to stay. Personally I ran the numbers and I put more money in my savings every year here than I would anywhere else.

I completely agree with the general sentiment that software engineers in particular suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect and I regularly have to explain to engineers that the world outside of software is not so neatly contained. But the notion that most software engineers here are not smart because they choose to live somewhere expensive is irrelevant if you aren't also talking about how much more money they make to live here.

But aren't they still supposed to fix the operations before they IPO, or at least enough to convince investors it's a good buy? We're not talking about companies that hope to stay private for the foreseeable future - these are companies that are trying (and failing) to IPO or very recently had unsuccessful IPOs.

A brand is only so useful if it's attached to a money fire.

> I still contend that most of the value of Uber is tied up in their brand, and I think the same is true of We. I’m not sure either of their operations are all that valuable.

What good is a brand if it's losing money?

I doubt OP is referring to the startups from 50+ years ago, and is much more likely referring to startups from the past 15 years.

I adore my LG OLED TV. I cannot recommend them enough.

I do not believe that Purdue is innocent of anything, and I would love for more evidence to be brought forward to a court of law.

https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/22/abbott-oxycontin-crusade...

That just sends the message that the rich can get rich by ruining the lives of however many thousands of people and will just seek new ways to get rich by ruining the lives of however many thousands of people.

The Mercedes Monoblade was my favorite design, although it was notoriously expensive and unreliable.

https://99percentinvisible.org/article/behind-screens-windsh...

> OTOH, healthcare isn't the only place where you might pay a fee to a facility for use of the facility and a fee to a service providers associated with the facility for services they provide in the facility.

Where else does this occur?

I strongly disagree. If your manager is being unreasonable, it's wishful thinking to try and reason with him.

Considering the barrier to entry for software engineering is a lot higher than most industries, the notion that our managers are less capable of understanding than in other industries seems misplaced.

I understand that. OP said:

> There is no sensible reason to pay a premium for brand name if the generic is chemically equivalent.

If they're not chemically equivalent and have different medicinal effects as a result, then it's much easier to justify a price difference. I understand chemistry is more than just a list of ingredients. It's how those ingredients are combined that gives them their unique interactions.

Doesn't that mean they're not chemically equivalent?

I have never seen WeWork compared to Flexport before. You don't consider Flexport to be a tech company?

You can have unrealistic managers in any occupation.

Out of curiosity, how reliable are all of the metrics we use for measuring economic health? For instance, how reliable is the unemployment rate when it is a highly political number with lots of incentives to misrepresent (ie the chronically unemployed are excluded from the count)? Beyond that, how much are these indicators just fudged or straight-up lied about?

Everybody is happy to agree with me when I say that China fudges their numbers, but when I say other countries are capable of the same thing they tell me I'm crazy. I am not an expert on China by any means, and I don't believe other countries report their economic health in the same way; but I also don't buy that everything the US and other western countries say is gospel.

You're completely ignoring the most important data. Han Solo and Darth Vader are not the same person. Maybe one is just more likable than the other?

You can have two different comedians tell identical jokes, word for word, and only one of them will be funny. Jim Jefferies does an entire bit about a journalist who reviews his jokes harshly after transcribing them to text. His conclusion is (paraphrasing) "my entire job is to say offensive things while still being likable."

There's a big difference between admiring Kalanick as a person, and admitting he created the über startup. (I think) most people on HN realize that questionable ethics are strongly correlated with success.

That's because you can opt out of the former. "No, I won't buy from Starbucks because of their cups. No, I won't eat that because it has GMOs." It's a lot harder to make that commitment when it's the air you breathe - you either have to wear a mask all the time or move away and live in the wilderness.

You should look up salaries for professors/lecturers that teach business, law, and medicine. They pay a lot more than salaries for professors/lecturers for history, math, and literature.

I test drove a Model S years ago. It definitely felt like a bus the moment you turned the steering wheel. There is no substitute for weight reduction when it comes to handling.

When I say prestigious jobs, I don't mean random companies you've never heard of - these include companies well known for their engineering excellence. I don't know how their careers advanced, so maybe they quickly found themselves looking for work elsewhere. No hiring process is perfect. We've all had to deal with less-than-excellent coworkers.

Yes, as engineers.

I know people that cheated, were utterly incompetent, and got prestigious jobs at tech firms.

I'm guessing it varies a lot by school. I went to a top engineering school as an undergrad and cheating was rampant - probably something like 1/3 of the graduating class participated in cheating to some extent. I then went to another top engineering school as a graduate student and I never saw anyone cheat.