Quite possible.
2,284 karma · joined December 30, 2010
Email: pradeepbs at gmail dot com
NVidia and FB are perfect examples of consistent performance Q over Q. That doesn't mean they don't have a long term vision. I'm sure there are many such companies that I haven't heard of.
Companies not going public has little or nothing to do with the focus on short term earnings. Companies are not going public because 1. There are alternative sources of cheap cash PE funds etc. 2. The cost of doing an IPO is incredibly high (in terms of time). 3. Associated processes Sarbanes-Ox etc are a pain to manage.
CEOs are willing to sacrifice some equity to avoid all these hassles and remain private.
As per slide 2, IT outsourcing still is the largest contributor to the IT industry. It is not a subset. As per this report at least. I couldn't find any other credible sources.
"All engineers/engineering effort/R&D in country X is obviously substandard" This is obviously a very biased statement that suffers from the 'some/all' fallacy based on anecdotal evidences. Unfortunately the world works this way. What the majority sees and believes is what trumps, regardless of the truth.
So the only similarity I see is irrational investment fueled by FOMO.
To draw a parallel to the stock market is not appropriate, but those who bought into MSFT or AMZN even during the peak of the dot com bubble have nothing to regret today.
As an experienced engineering manager this is what I've come across - Some of the engineers who put a 9 to 5 clause, are usually the obstinate engineers, who are not very productive during the hours of 9 to 5, but won't make up by working extra hours. The motto is 'This is all I'll deliver, live with it'. Perhaps, this bias factors in and a generalization emerges 'All 9 to 5 engineers are stubborn, non-creative, non-committed'. This is a huge fallacy because, again based on my limited experience, I have worked with some of the most productive, creative and committed engineers who mostly worked 9-5, but sprang to action in the middle of the night when a high priority production bug had to be looked into.
Can you please elaborate on this a bit more. What is direct transfer and how is it different from bitcoin /ethereum payments. From what I understand, they are the same.
One potential obstruction to this is probably the speed of transaction confirmation. I believe it takes about an hour for a transaction to be confirmed. If we equate that to a current fiat currency based transaction confirmation which takes just a fraction of a second, we are way off. I may be wrong in this comparison. What I do understand is that, you can't have the blockchain and also the speed of a fiat currency based transaction confirmation. What I don't understand is - Is this confirmation so crucial. I see blockchain as more amenable to existing workflows that takes eons to complete, such as an approval in an organization.
But Elon is not promising the moon. He is very clear when he states his goals, that these goals are very ambitious goals and that the probability of meeting them is fairly low.
https://in.udacity.com/course/design-of-computer-programs--c...