chucke1992

6 ms·

31.
by chucke1992 2y ago
I am biased but I am not disconnected from the facts. I am still pissed at Ballmer with how they missed search and mobile market. They were late with Search and they were late with mobile. With Teams it was just luck, but even then Team&#x2
32.
by chucke1992 2y ago
We cannot tell if the currently most profitable divisions would become that profitable under Ballmer. That's the whole point - Satya somehow was able to develop the platforms through acquisitions and business vendor lock much better th
33.
by chucke1992 2y ago
> How can you right this in good faith while replying to a comment laying out to you that Microsoft most successful investments a decade later were all started by Ballmer and that he took a lot of risks with R&D? Investment in R&
34.
by chucke1992 2y ago
But here is the thing - launching the initiative means nothing. Satya is able to expand and develop it. Like with Ballmer we certainly would not have got O365 to iOS for example. It would be 100% bundled one way or another to Windows servic
35.
by chucke1992 2y ago
He was a good CFO type of a leader. Unlike a lot of other companies like Intel or Boeing, that were run by CFOs, he did not last long enough to run MSFT into the ground due to being too late to modern trends. Sure he build the foundation, b
36.
by chucke1992 2y ago
The problem with Ballmer is that he missed a lot of opportunities. Satya is much better in that regard.
37.
by chucke1992 2y ago
well, values don't feed you. I am pretty sure a lot of folks would abandon their own beliefs if somebody gave them 1m.
38.
by chucke1992 2y ago
they are sensationalist because they are trying to imitate the discourse like on TikTok or Twitter - some short sentence that makes people pay attention while reading the headline. It is like "click on us!!!" And it is getting wor
39.
by chucke1992 2y ago
reminds me of this https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gawc7-sXwAAHPaR?format=jpg&name=...
40.
by chucke1992 2y ago
nobody wants independent journalism. never wanted. people want something that aligns with their point of view. that's why streamers, podcasters and subgroups are so successful - you find like-minded folks there that agree with you. And
41.
by chucke1992 2y ago
They are basically implying that the government should support businesses that fall in line with the government. Which is a strange thing to support though, but it often happens anyway.
42.
by chucke1992 2y ago
traditional media is already losing the influence to be honest. Even big networks like CNN or Fox News are basically dying. In the era of tiktok, twitter, podcasters and other services - traditional media is just too boring source of news.
43.
by chucke1992 2y ago
I don't think it was that expensive of a purchase to care. In the first place it was done in order to stop bashing Bezos himself (I remember how the pivoted from saying how millionaires should not exist to millionaires are good). Plus
44.
by chucke1992 2y ago
Oh, they had more subscribers than I expected.
45.
by chucke1992 2y ago
Essentially they are not competitive due to regulations and being "a pension fund" nobody working there is willing to innovate or change anything "not incrementally" Shame that they cannot be lean and mean due to unions
46.
by chucke1992 2y ago
Adobe has a powerful moat. That's why companies like MSFT can find better way to integrate AI into workflows rather than just AI companies without any moat.
47.
by chucke1992 2y ago
Except MSFT got OpenAI extremely cheap. They invested in them early on and basically are paying them with Azure credits.
48.
by chucke1992 2y ago
Now we can nuke a database to the orbit for real
49.
by chucke1992 2y ago
Adobe has a really huge moat they can leverage to acquire users.
50.
by chucke1992 2y ago
wow, 1.5m crazy
51.
by chucke1992 2y ago
That's understandable. Control over standards has the immense value. Just like look at Nvidia's CUDA.
52.
by chucke1992 2y ago
> Free speech is good upto certain extent Until you own speech is banned right? We are the "good ones" after all.
53.
by chucke1992 2y ago
So basically closer and closer to governmental control over social networks. Seems like a global trend everywhere. Governments will define the rules by which communication services (and social networks) should operate.
54.
by chucke1992 2y ago
Fix it by piping
55.
by chucke1992 2y ago
With Whatsapp it is pretty obvious at this point that it is in cahoot with governments in regards of backdoors and stuff. With Signal? Who knows? Maybe too. Governments don't go after services that they can access freely.
56.
by chucke1992 2y ago
Famous quote that if you sacrifice freedom for security, you will get neither.
57.
by chucke1992 2y ago
Except Telegram is considered one of the most secured apps around. Obviously it cannot stop people from being stupid when they expose themselves. The very reason why France is not happy is that because they cannot get access to private chat
58.
by chucke1992 2y ago
> I don't believe there are any western nations that want non-locally-backdoored messaging of any sort But that's what exactly they want no? EU is literally implementing a regulation that will allow to "circumvent end-to
59.
by chucke1992 2y ago
Basically as he did not provide access to the encrypted messages and communication in Telegram, they accused him for supporting the criminals. That's all to it. It is basically the part of the current politics in EU where they are tryi
60.
by chucke1992 2y ago
> Do you unironically believe it's not already backdoored for Russian government? Yes. You should read the history of Durov and why Telegram was created in the first place.

More ›