semiotagonal

Did the company manage to IPO before it tanked?

How are the people putting the actual, real-world money into these businesses so unable to protect themselves against getting taken to the cleaners by a departing CEO?

The timing was brutal. I made the mistake of hanging on with a sinking company until the end of 2001. In 2002 there were so many resumes chasing so few jobs that I wonder if anyone even saw mine. I didn't collect another paycheck until early 2004.

I believe Son is underwater on Uber as well, and if Slack falls somewhat below $10, would be eating a loss even there.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/07/uber-wework-and-slack-public...

Unless I'm making a mistake someplace, Digital Ocean includes 1TB egress to the internet from a $5-per-month host. On Google Cloud Platform that egress would cost $120/month by itself.

https://www.digitalocean.com/pricing/#Compute

https://cloud.google.com/compute/network-pricing

If it's breaking 32-bit apps, and you need at least one 32-bit app (for the author, Aperture), that's kind of all you need to know.

> That reads less like a reasonable, well-thought breakdown and more like a whiny diatribe coming from an entitled teenager.

A customer is legitimately entitled to upgrades that aren't actually downgrades.

> Apple isn't forcing anyone to upgrade at all.

> Just don't act surprised and attacked when it doesn't work anymore years from now.

Well... if Apple isn't forcing people to upgrade now, but will later, then there's still grounds for complaint.

An unhappy customer always has the right, nay, duty, to publicly complain until the business changes its behavior.

You should take the $10 million. That's "fuck-you money"; with that amount, you're beholden to nobody. $1 million doesn't cut it. $100 million is unnecessary.

You might need to simply create a workplace rule that powerpoints are not to be considered stores of information, and that any specs contained in them will be discarded at the end of the presentation.

Indeed, I wasn't suggesting it was a good investment, just that the appearance of the chart is fairly consistent in moving toward a value of zero.

When they're so big that no competition can challenge them.

My personal opinion is that Facebook should be broken up, but social media remain unregulated, since a ban on lies only rewards the most skilled liars, whose statements can fool the evaluators.

Slack's stock price chart has a "down and to the right" appearance.

Thanks.

Seriously, did no one learn the lesson of Captain Kirk and the Kobayashi Maru? When faced with impossible odds, redefine the problem.

I tried the popular Machine Learning course on Coursera, and found myself spending tons of time debugging Octave code because to me it was such an unfamiliar way of expressing things. A widely accepted alternative in a more popular programming language would be a nice thing to exist.

Even medically, you're not evaluating anything about consciousness (i.e. subjective experience) directly. You're just measuring things that we think imply consciousness.

> "[O]nly the truly elite ones run towards the fear."

Every time I read the philosophizing of a venture capitalist, it sounds more and more like an indoctrination into how to run your company in the venture capitalist's favor.

If you're a venture capitalist with a portfolio of dozens of CEOs running toward their fear, odds are a few of them are going to crash through and win, and the rest you can just disregard as the cost of doing business.

If you're the CEO actually running toward the fear, it's more of an all-or-nothing thing.

Is it possible that the universe stays the same size and everything within it shrinks?

I'm arguing in favor of legalization, not against it. In my estimation legalization means more addicts, a greater burden of addiction for society, fewer people in jail, and fewer bystanders hurt by the business. On balance it's the more moral choice, because for the most part those who end up experiencing the negative effects are doing so by choice, and dealing with legal addicts is preferable to dealing with illegal enterprises.

tl;dr Legalization makes sense, because even though more people end up negatively impacted, they are generally only hurting themselves.

It surely wouldn't be good for American society, but at least it's a choice for those who decide to use those substances.

As it stands, the prohibition on drugs has created a business that many find worth resorting to violence over, and it impacts people in Mexico who would never have chosen to get involved.

There's no good answer here, but letting addicts drop out of society and damage their health with legal drugs seems more moral than banning drugs and having bystanders suffer.

Good riddance. It was impossible to drive on anyway, no rules whatsoever.

It was a bit harsh on the Dell kids; they actually seemed to have learned from their mistake and never sought to be on "rich kids of Instagram" in the first place. Except for the fact that he's on a private plane, the thought process isn't that different than any "bro" ordering 100 Chicken McNuggets and getting a picture taken.

Nevertheless, rich kids are clogging up the system, both in competition for capital investment (rich kids know how to ask for money), and in saturating the market with money-losing businesses that crowd out those that actually need to make money.

Trading seems to have people from a very wide variety of backgrounds and capabilities. I think it's the result of random events being the most significant filtering mechanism. Anyone can get burned on a trade at any time, so staying in the game doesn't really depend on anyone's qualifications or abilities.

I've never heard of them either. Meetup's demise will be a great opportunity for them, but I think a lot of them will be hobbled by having off-putting names.

As an early-2013 MacBook Pro user, I concur. I bought the one-notch-below-top-of-the-line model, and it has been well worth the price.

Since then the hardware has gotten worse, and with MacOS Catalina, the software is worse as well (the removal of 32-bit support affects my workflow; I can't use MacOS Catalina).

The sad thing is, nothing else has really gotten better. I'm leaning toward side-grading to Linux, but there's risk involved in buying a full-spec machine for Linux and perhaps finding it doesn't do everything I need it to do.

The commenter above has done a real dis-service to Tutanota if they've really quoted it at 30 times the price.

If the stock price is contrived, it's contrived, and the only difference between humans arriving at a price slowly and computers arriving at it quickly is how much time and money gets consumed in transaction costs.

If a company wants their stock to have a more stable price, they need to make the price less contrived, for instance by paying dividends that anchor the price to something tangible.

I guess this is what they call a "hot take", but it's simply impossible to preserve a neighborhood's character and keep it affordable. You either have to build the same type of residences upward (in the city), or adjacent (in the suburbs), or have prices go through the roof, or have a period of crisis and collapse clear everyone out.

> It would be impossible to stop the software, just as they can’t stop bitcoin.

It seems impossible when you think about it for a little while, but when someone thinks long and hard about it because it's their full-time government job, maybe someone finds a way.

Or stop buying Apple products, which is my end-goal after all of this. Their stuff costs too much money to have them undermining my workflow at their whim.

Apple used to about things that "just work", now they're about things that "don't work anymore".