4 ms·
I remember when we used to say things like that about Google, circa 2000.
by BiteCode_dev 4y ago
I remember when we used to say things like that about Google, circa 2000.
- xrd 4y agoGoogle used to have that, probably lost it, and then they lost people like Brad Fitz.
- dekhn 4y agoMaybe Urs etc shouldn't have criticized Brad when he posted his well-intentioned "Do not buy Nest Protect smoke alarm". https://twitter.com/bradfitz/status/566072337020112896?lang=en https://twitter.com/bradfitz/status/566072337020112896?lang=... The product was a terrible piece of crap that never should have been released.
- bla3 4y agoI don't have an opinion on that product, but no smoke alarm is "hushable" due to state laws, as far as I know.
- Semaphor 4y agoSo what happens when the alarm goes off? Hope it’s a fire and the device gets burned down?
- bri3d 4y agoI'm not aware of any state law that prohibits a hushable smoke alarm. Short-term (<15minute, repeatable) hush modes are considered a safety feature. They prevent angry homeowners from removing the smoke alarm entirely, a far more dangerous situation than a short term hush. NFPA 72 recommends a desensitization method for ionization smoke alarms and requires one for smoke alarms installed near a cooking appliance, and several states have followed in codifying this into law. Hush is not required for photoelectric smoke alarms, under the theory that they are less prone to cooking and shower-related false-positives, but this feature is still allowed and they are a common user convenience. UL 217 allows smoke alarms to be provided with a <15 minute desensitization feature which prevents an alarm from triggering unless obscuration/ft exceeds 4%. Also... the Nest v2 got an in-app hush feature. My understanding is that V1 had some kind of false-positive issue that triggered a ">4% non-hushable" alarm, though, so this wouldn't have mattered.
- endtime 4y agoAnd Avery (CEO), who was by far the best presenter (and thing-namer) I ever worked with at Google.
- dkjaudyeqooe 4y agoEarning large sums of money corrupts everything. Eventually people realise that being 'evil' is highly profitable.
- nicoburns 4y agoI think it might be being a public company more than it is about earning large sums of money. The people who own public companies ultimately have control of the company, and typically care only about how much money is generated.
- jlkuester7 4y agoYup, this what what I eventually grew to dislike the most about working for a public company. At the end of the day the stock price was the only thing that mattered. It would have been easier to stomach if the shareholders had a long-term vision of a healthy successful company whose value accumulates over time by making good long-term business decisions. But, quarterly returns were the name of the game. The executive compensation was tied to that performance and that cemented it into the basic strategy of all decisions.... (And this was for a large (20000+ employees), well established (40+ years old), corporation in a relatively stable sector (health care tech).
- bombcar 4y agoThe problem with public companies is they effectively have no shareholders; none that can actually do anything to affect the company. Which leaves the company to be run by the managers for the managers. Bogle (the father of the index fund) talks about how the index fund and friends has warped the benefits of ownership to leave companies effectively "unowned".
- xxpor 4y agoHow is that any different from a typical private company?
- 1ncorrect 4y agoI gave Google the benefit of the doubt right up until they introduced their real name policy, haven’t had an active account since.
- wnevets 4y agoOnce the MBAs and accountants take over a company things like that can't happen anymore.