Theranos never had a working product and actively did harm, so I don’t know how having patents would have ever helped them scale that business model.
Beyond that, these are extraordinary circumstances. There will be plenty of bailouts and stimulus for you to scale your business model when the dust settles; let’s focus on scaling our response and systems to meet this crisis first shall we?
It might be some of that, but folks on that subreddit tend to take super risky positions that can go south on them very fast. It’s possible a few made some really stupid bets during the crash and they couldn’t get out today.
It’s definitely the invisible hand of the market at work here and not the massive amounts of marketing subsidies being thrown at the product. That’s why Uber is posting so much profit each quarter, right?
The definition offered in the first paragraph of that article seems to conjure the exact same imagery in my head that the parent post did. How exactly is he parent off base with this comparison?
How is it ridiculous? The article said GCP would receive reduced invesment if that target isn't met. It's a bit hard to grow without investing, so it smells to me like a precursor to sustained engineering.
Individuals don’t typically enter into enterprise contracts ran by a dedicated sales rep, while I’d imagine government contracts and big enterprise spend are usually handles directly by the company.
You know there’s a clear distinction between directly serving an organization and serving an individual that happens to work for an organization. Don’t be disingenuous now.
Because time and time ICE has shown it has a remarkable ability to define “legal status” as it sees fit. Consider the fake college ICE[0] used to arrest and deport immigrants; they were granted Student Visas and believed they were here legally. What would your advice be to them?
Your position seems to start from an assumption that these institutions are acting in good faith, and so it’s illogical to decry an institution if it doesn’t directly impact you. I pray you look at the gamut of evidence available that shows this simply isn’t the case.
Why do we have to assume a publicly owned utility wouldn’t be able to focus on safety and efficiency at the same time? I mean, there’s data on Medicare being more efficient than private insurance[0]. Why is this different? I’m not sure I’m convinced that the profit incentive needs to exist for them to worry about costs.
I think this is just management cynically reframing some popular “social justice” rhetoric in a way that allows them to paint their opposition as a “progressive” position to take. But maybe that’s a cynical reading of their language too...
Would you blame a toddler for leaping into traffic while being babysat by a paid adult human, or would you blame the paid adult human who was tasked with the job of watching over this life form?
Personally I’d blame the “paid professional” before I’d blame the being with minimal rational thought.