To be fair both of them probably didn't imagine Stripe would be the one today. You can apply the same logic for any successful companies, like the guy who gave up 10% of Apple for some changes.
>>Isn't the important thing I actually need to know to understand what happened here buried towards the bottom of this story
This is the major reason I unsubscribed from Wired, most articles from them are unnecessary long yet convey only a few major points, while coloring other minor points with too many unrelated facts.
I guess there are readers who enjoys that writing style but for a case like this, I just don't understand the motives.
I think it's too late, they already have planned to fork from Android for years, this (potentially permanent) ban just motivated them to speed up the process.
I second this is not about US security but about Google losing their mobile market share.
I'm not sure how a professor at a pretty good school like NYU has a blunt tone like this.
Beside personally criticizing people by their personal choice, which I found baseless, there is zero information here. There are people with that life style like that all the time, just because they happen to be tech CEO doesn't mean it's a sign to a macro thing like bubble.
One thing I've been regreting the most after 10 year living in the valley is that I shouldn't have listened to the 'tech bubble' propaganda back in 2016, nor delayed buying my first house, which should have saved me ton of cash.
Recently I think the scandals haven't been the single biggest factor when deciding between Facebook and other firms.
The common reason I heard from most of my friends who turned down FB, or quitted FB was that the working culture is too demanding and kind of pressure. Google on the other hand is more laid back and family friendly. So people who started building a family will prefer Google over FB. The nice thing is FB tends to offer higher level than Google, so in some cases, if you get matched, it works out pretty well.
I have a friend who worked at FB, after he came back from paternity leave, his manager told him he has been slacking (his reviews were always "meet all"/"exceeding" before), it's time to put in more work, he quitted after a month.
While I'm not quite sure about Tesla's responsibility, I do think CA DOT has its part in this tragic accident. Had the attenuator been replaced right after the previous accident, it could have saved the driver's life.
Usually I don't complain much about the gov, but just look at the construction mess they've created on 101, it's been like that for more than 4 years!
Can we just stop with the 'Apple stopped innovating' propaganda, the same thing can be said about any big corps, be it Google/FB/Netflix/...
Innovation doesn't just mean creating new products (the Airpod is one of Apple's killer product by the way), improving current products used by millions of people while keeping them coming back to buy more and more is not easy, this is also counted as innovation in my book.
It's funny how they put CA EV Rebate in the 'after savings' part. This rebate has income cap at $300k/household. If I made less than that, I would think really hard before purchasing a $90k car.
It seems like being academically excellent and being successful in industry are totally different things. I still remember the hype about Udacity and Coursera a few years ago.
Beside VmWare and Akamai, I haven't seen any company founded by university faculty that have survived and made impact (even though VMware was tiny compared to what it is today when EMC acquired them)
I still don't understand why the last investor is the first one to be able to cash out. Is this common in startup?
I was thinking the first investor is the one that took the big risk investing in the company, shouldn't they have the rights to cash out first when there is a liquidation event?