This was really interesting, thank you. I found myself playing "would i really ignore this color or would i ignore any color given the contrasting castles etc that are drawing your attention" in all the pictures
This was his Tweet from several weeks ago, which I thought was insightful, both from a technical as well as socieconomic perspective when you think about data usage etc in these models - "Caterpillars extract nutrients which are then converted into butterflies. People have extracted billions of nuggets of understanding and GPT-4 is humanity's butterfly."
Did he see enough in the past 6 weeks that made him change his mind?
So the real complaint is dynamic pricing, which is essentially raising prices to what the market will bear, instead of having (what was formerly artificially) low prices that get scalped. Now the extra money that used to go to scalpers goes to TM instead, and the downside is that some % of fans that could previously luck out and get cheap tickets no longer can.
Isnt this...not a bad thing? There's fundamentally just a supply and demand problem, with more people wanting to see these concerts than there are concerts. The article mentions that Garth brooks solved this by doing more concerts (e.g. 9 in a row in the same city!), but that's obviously not viable for everyone. Is there a better solution? Even if there were 5 different companies selling concert tickets, wouldnt they inevitably move to dynamic pricing for the same reason?
Yes, it's real. IMO it's the following - 1. tech has flourished during the pandemic, and that plus money printing means there is a ton of demand and money floating around to attract talent. 2. after 18 months of working from home and being miserable during covid, people are ready for a change. that's why we see a lot of new home purchases, job changes, moves, etc. It seems liek covid has basically accelerated people's timelines by several years because they realized life is short, things can change in a flash, and they reassess whatever it is they're doing and whether it's something they want to keep doing, and a lot of the time the answer is no. Increased demand/$$ plus increased supply = ton of movement between jobs
This is fairly cynical but i think it's one consequence of the economic boom. During recessions and recovery aftermath there are rarely issues like this, people are generally grateful for their jobs, not looking to pick fights over it. Not saying that is a better situation since it enables more corporations to exploit their employees, but the pendulum has swung pretty far the other way. Will be interesting to see what happens next recession.
Interesting how quickly this fell off the front page (saw it earlier, then came back to find the link and it was already off the first 3 pages). Is that due to a large number of up/downvotes in the same time?
Nope - from the article "The facial recognition fight in San Francisco is largely theoretical — the police department does not currently deploy facial recognition technology, except in its airport and ports that are under federal jurisdiction and are not impacted by the legislation."
Drugs, homelessness, human feces, insane housing prices -- well at least we can solve theoretical facial recognition
As a former startup and FANG employee, I absolutely agree that working at a startup AS AN EMPLOYEE is not financially beneficial. The only ways to really make money as a non-founder employee at a startup is by being lucky enough to be at a Google/FB/Uber type exit for billions (not millions), or coming in as senior leadership (VP/CxO type role) AFTER the startup has gone through its growing pains, determined product market fit, and is seeing good traction. This is honestly as it should be - as an employee you are taking far less risk than founders (and to be fair, than most investors as well), so you shouldn't expect a massive windfall. As some people have commented, reason the cost benefit is out of whack is mainly due to recently inflated salaries (over the last few years) that came about as the result of FB/Google poaching wars, so this is a relatively recent development, and who knows how long it may last.
Rupert Murdoch threatened Mark Zuckerberg in 2016 with a war over Facebook
"Murdoch hosted Zuckerberg at his Sun Valley, Idaho, villa and expressed discontent with Facebook's News Feed algorithm and its handling of news.
He requested Facebook consult publishing partners and be more generous sharing digital ad revenue, or he vowed, News Corp executives would take their dislike of Facebook public. He also hinted that News Corp lobbyists would take a more aggressive stand against Facebook with U.S. regulators, as the company had done against Google in Europe."
What are you talking about? Google is/was not contemplating offering social media and search services as part of Maven. The subthread op asked, why can't a company help its country's military?
Won’t the industry change to adopt that massive price cut/productivity gain?