blahi

26 ms·

1. 271.▲
   by blahi 10y ago

   You assume that all investors follow the same profile for all of their investments. This is a company which was all but guaranteed to succeed and sell in <3 years for billions.
2. 272.▲
   by blahi 10y ago

   The problems are deep and broad and lead to the Napoleonic Wars and the United States' independence among other things.
3. 273.▲
   by blahi 10y ago

   - Leadership at large companies are not morons. - Why Kodak failed then? - Kodak failed because of inertia. - Leadership intelligence doesn't matter. Do you hear that? That's the sound of the logic chain breaking.
4. 274.▲
   by blahi 10y ago

   For two years?
5. 275.▲
   by blahi 10y ago

   Just Marc Lore things.
6. 276.▲
   by blahi 10y ago

   Isn't javascript really really really fast? The Julia websites has a benchmark for various languages performing some tasks. Javascript seemed pretty comparable to Java.
7. 277.▲
   by blahi 10y ago

   Except that there needs to be a tradeoff between privacy and tracking. This sounds to be a pretty reasonable solution.
8. 278.▲
   by blahi 10y ago

   This is a very serious reason. Obviously there are many creeps on the internet. They can taunt, prod, confuse, mislead and provoke the already unstable person, in a nerve wrecking situation, with a gun in his hand. The mere fact that s&#x2F
9. 279.▲
   by blahi 10y ago

   It is also the reason why broadcasters do not show field invasions from fans in football (the real football). There are some people with very loose screws in their heads. Claiming fame with stupid shit like that totally justifies it in th
10. 280.▲
    by blahi 10y ago

    There a lot of jobs that pay that much in other comapnies in and outside of tech, although you will be expected to do more than just excel at a profession (read go to management). There are also many more tech companies which will give such
11. 281.▲
    by blahi 10y ago

    You will get affluent in 10-20 years. That's my point. You get rich slowly, not quickly. And wealth is not defined by how much money you make, but by how much money you have.
12. 282.▲
    by blahi 10y ago

    Because you can achieve high proficiency rather quickly. Contrast this with engineers who optimize compliers who need much deeper and broader knowledge to make decisions in their day to day work, yet have the same comp. How is this fair? Ag
13. 283.▲
    by blahi 10y ago

    I pointed you out (sort of) to why Kodak failed. It had MASSIVE facilities with 10s of thousands of employees making industrial chemicals. You cannot snap your fingers and transition to another business model.
14. 284.▲
    by blahi 10y ago

    Exactly my point.
15. 285.▲
    by blahi 10y ago

    This adage is used mostly by snake oil salesmen slinging get-rich-quick schemes. Working for somebody else is probably the best way to get rich. Putting a qualification here, rich is not filthy rich, but affluent to comfortably rich.
16. 286.▲
    by blahi 10y ago

    Sorry, but this is straight up proletariat bull. You get hired, you get paid. If it doesn't pan out, you go somewhere else. You have 0 risk and a guaranteed career. And sorry, but 100k for a javascript "engineer" is more than
17. 287.▲
    by blahi 10y ago

    You are oversimplifying this to the point where your conclusion is almost completely wrong. There are many factors which contribute to the decline of companies. For example there was an article about Kodak on HN and why it failed. The inert
18. 288.▲
    by blahi 10y ago

    Yes actually.
19. 289.▲
    by blahi 10y ago

    Yeah. Large companies are lead by idiots. That's why they are so large.
20. 290.▲
    by blahi 10y ago

    This is the 2nd time I see a NYT article bashing on private equity. The first time it was about ambulances and it was factually incorrect (to put it mildly). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11977710 Do not get tripped
21. 291.▲
    by blahi 10y ago

    https://github.com/phacility/phabricator wow. Why is this not more famous?
22. 292.▲
    by blahi 10y ago

    How are Snowplow and Piwik completely proprietary?
23. 293.▲
    by blahi 10y ago

    >I agree that those tasks likely will be solvable by AI in the not too distant future. What experience or understanding about "AI" do you base your opinion on?
24. 294.▲
    by blahi 10y ago

    Step one: Stop calling equations "AI".
25. 295.▲
    by blahi 10y ago

    I think you guys are here just to argue and make excuses for google. I get it that you are fanboys, but please... The GP said that they are like Berkshire Hathaway - basically a conglomerate of profitable companies. This simply isn't t
26. 296.▲
    by blahi 10y ago

    No, Adwords makes them billions in advertising revenue.
27. 297.▲
    by blahi 10y ago

    Only YouTube was acquired (Android and Maps were too, but not really). YouTube does OK, the rest not so much. Just because they are popular doesn't mean they are profitable. And they are most definitely not independent. On the other ha
28. 298.▲
    by blahi 10y ago

    >Add 100 employees and it doesn't cost you a dime. That's not always the case. Especially in the space that NetSuite operates in. Microsoft charges per CAL. SAP, Oracle and IBM have their corresponding pricing structure.
29. 299.▲
    by blahi 10y ago

    Except that Google totally failed at this and facebook will probably fail at it too. And Amazon is just regular M&Aing with the random subsidiary spinoff happening.
30. 300.▲
    by blahi 10y ago

    So your argument is that the author is wrong because somebody else might have been wrong for something that happened in the past. Makes total sense.