7 ms·

1.) Xiaomi worth billions of dollars, not 1.4 trillion, but way more than most companies. 2.) People call out Google all. the. time. There's an article here we

by chomp 6y ago

1.) Xiaomi worth billions of dollars, not 1.4 trillion, but way more than most companies. 2.) People call out Google all. the. time. There's an article here weekly about dumping Google, finding alternatives, praying for antitrust regulation, etc. 3.) We don't commonly call billionaires who live in the middle east, china, and other non-western countries "oligarchs", do you know why? Why are you so upset about Xiaomi getting called out?

sneak 6y ago
I see people calling out Google regularly but rarely is Chrome explicitly termed "spyware", although it very much is: I had to configure G Suite managed browser settings recently and there are like 4 different backdoor ways that big G can "incidentally" process your web traffic and keystrokes: enhanced safe browsing, image alt text accessibility service, uploading your downloads to a scanning service, browser profile history sync, "make the web better" history upload opt-in, et c et c et c. We should be more consistent in our terminology.
stevewodil 6y ago
>1.) Xiaomi worth billions of dollars, not 1.4 trillion, but way more than most companies. They're referring to Alphabet's (Google) market cap, not Xiaomi's.
- totalZero 6y ago
  Pretty clear that GP understands this, since his next point specifically addresses Google. I think he's saying that Xiaomi is also a big company, albeit less big. Seems like a fair point.
  - stevewodil 6y ago
    Actually, it's certainly not "pretty clear". The GP responded to each line in the original comment with a number. So, their point about Google (point #2) was seemingly unrelated to their point about Xiaomi's market cap (point #1) as they addressed different parts of the original comment. The GP mentioned Google perhaps not because of the market cap mentioned in point #1, but rather as a response to the original comment's mention of American companies. This is further evidenced by their use of point #3 to refer to the term oligarch, which was the third topic raised in the original comment. You can see how not clear this is based on other replies to the comment as well.
  - pedrosorio 6y ago
    This is a very interesting chain on how people interpret comments. To me (and you) it is obvious that GP only had one reason to mention Google (the 1.4 trillion valuation), but both the OP and the person you are responding to were convinced the GP "didn't get it". Fascinating.
cwhiz 6y ago
>Xiaomi worth billions of dollars, not 1.4 trillion, but way more than most companies. I'm referring to Google with that valuation. >We don't commonly call billionaires who live in the middle east, china, and other non-western countries "oligarchs", do you know why? Propaganda? An oligarch is a rich person with a lot of political influence. Sounds like an average billionaire to me. >People call out Google all. the. time. There's an article here weekly about dumping Google, finding alternatives, praying for antitrust regulation, etc I don't think I have ever seen a mainstream publication refer to Google apps and services as spyware. Which of course is what they are. >Why are you so upset about Xiaomi getting called out? Only annoyed at the obviously biased language.
- missedthecue 6y ago
  How much political influence do you think someone like Bezos really has? Everyone in washington hates him. No one wants to do favors for him. They drag him in front of congress do get a bunch of soundbites to play next election cycle. They win elections on shutting down his headquarter plans. They want to break up his company, raise his taxes on unrealized capital gains, they want to force him to divest his personal investments like WaPo. Same goes for other billionaires. You think there's a lot of love for Ken Griffin? Or the Google founders? Or Jamie Dimon? Of course not. Billionaires are a common bogeyman for the populists that have ruled the capitol for the last 10 years or so.
  - AlexandrB 6y ago
    On the flip side, there were municipal governments literally giving Amazon powers over taxation and spending[1] to get them to set up their headquarters in their city. I think this is quite a bit of political power myself. [1] https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/amazon-city-benefits-second-headquarters_n_5beb511ae4b044bbb1a9ebf2?ri18n=true https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/amazon-city-benefits-sec...
    - missedthecue 6y ago
      I wouldn't call someone with sway over municipal governments an oligarch though.
varjag 6y ago
Re (3), explore why Russians themselves call them oligarchs in first place.

by chomp 6y ago

sneak 6y ago

I see people calling out Google regularly but rarely is Chrome explicitly termed "spyware", although it very much is: I had to configure G Suite managed browser settings recently and there are like 4 different backdoor ways that big G can "incidentally" process your web traffic and keystrokes: enhanced safe browsing, image alt text accessibility service, uploading your downloads to a scanning service, browser profile history sync, "make the web better" history upload opt-in, et c et c et c. We should be more consistent in our terminology.

stevewodil 6y ago

>1.) Xiaomi worth billions of dollars, not 1.4 trillion, but way more than most companies. They're referring to Alphabet's (Google) market cap, not Xiaomi's.

totalZero 6y ago
Pretty clear that GP understands this, since his next point specifically addresses Google. I think he's saying that Xiaomi is also a big company, albeit less big. Seems like a fair point.
- stevewodil 6y ago
  Actually, it's certainly not "pretty clear". The GP responded to each line in the original comment with a number. So, their point about Google (point #2) was seemingly unrelated to their point about Xiaomi's market cap (point #1) as they addressed different parts of the original comment. The GP mentioned Google perhaps not because of the market cap mentioned in point #1, but rather as a response to the original comment's mention of American companies. This is further evidenced by their use of point #3 to refer to the term oligarch, which was the third topic raised in the original comment. You can see how not clear this is based on other replies to the comment as well.
- pedrosorio 6y ago
  This is a very interesting chain on how people interpret comments. To me (and you) it is obvious that GP only had one reason to mention Google (the 1.4 trillion valuation), but both the OP and the person you are responding to were convinced the GP "didn't get it". Fascinating.

cwhiz 6y ago

>Xiaomi worth billions of dollars, not 1.4 trillion, but way more than most companies. I'm referring to Google with that valuation. >We don't commonly call billionaires who live in the middle east, china, and other non-western countries "oligarchs", do you know why? Propaganda? An oligarch is a rich person with a lot of political influence. Sounds like an average billionaire to me. >People call out Google all. the. time. There's an article here weekly about dumping Google, finding alternatives, praying for antitrust regulation, etc I don't think I have ever seen a mainstream publication refer to Google apps and services as spyware. Which of course is what they are. >Why are you so upset about Xiaomi getting called out? Only annoyed at the obviously biased language.

missedthecue 6y ago
How much political influence do you think someone like Bezos really has? Everyone in washington hates him. No one wants to do favors for him. They drag him in front of congress do get a bunch of soundbites to play next election cycle. They win elections on shutting down his headquarter plans. They want to break up his company, raise his taxes on unrealized capital gains, they want to force him to divest his personal investments like WaPo. Same goes for other billionaires. You think there's a lot of love for Ken Griffin? Or the Google founders? Or Jamie Dimon? Of course not. Billionaires are a common bogeyman for the populists that have ruled the capitol for the last 10 years or so.
- AlexandrB 6y ago
  On the flip side, there were municipal governments literally giving Amazon powers over taxation and spending[1] to get them to set up their headquarters in their city. I think this is quite a bit of political power myself. [1] https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/amazon-city-benefits-second-headquarters_n_5beb511ae4b044bbb1a9ebf2?ri18n=true https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/amazon-city-benefits-sec...
  - missedthecue 6y ago
    I wouldn't call someone with sway over municipal governments an oligarch though.

varjag 6y ago

Re (3), explore why Russians themselves call them oligarchs in first place.