How in the world is a tweet about funding methodology even close to outrageous content that tip toes into banishment? You're losing the plot, friend.
It's simply a tweet to say he gets more value from talking directly with the founders about what he wants to know. Seems pretty reasonable to me, but I could see how a certain audience would say ** context and ignore to categorize it as "controversial edgy tweets". Easy to rile those people up though without challenging the algo.
Ok, but is that true for GCP? The GCP portfolio seems to be intentionally run differently than products elsewhere within Google.
Looking at that list, there's not much of a record for GCP products. I'm just skimming, maybe Chatbase but I believe the plan was always to integrate it into Dialogflow itself.
I think it's irrelevant to what was being said in their conversation. In Marc's context, being fake/shit equated to non-replicable simply. Before that quote, I believe he was talking about the replication crisis briefly.
C'mon guy, that's not good faith argument. I have a whole twitter full of folks calling for war crimes against what China's doing; Not to mention, Disney got plenty of backlash for that move from the people paying attention. (Google Disney Xinjiang and it's so ubiquitous I don't feel the need to link myself)
Seems your problem is more with mainstream media. You're deflecting from the argument at hand here. Not to mention, the wrongs of the Israeli cybersec industry, like with NSO group, seem much less covered than Xinjiang genocide (to me, but I'm sure there's ways to quantify the coverage differential)
Shh... The product marketing-authored deck on common objections doesn't care about SMBs. No offense to the original comment, but that's such a rehearsed answer that as you mentioned is irrelevant (despite sounding good on the surface) to everyone else.
A contract like Deutsche Bank means dedicated GCP customer engineers, professional service engagements at the highest levels, direct conversations with individual product leaders/managers, roadmaps conveyed to their needs, alphas etc etc.
If it's irrelevant to the Deutsche Bank's of customers, then it's of course fair game to get f'd with.
The day big tech companies learned that democrats would chair all the congressional committees that oversee them, these kinds of actions started happening. If that doesn't concern you, I don't know what to tell you.
I don't want to be that guy and say to effect, "well, welcome to the real world". There are trade-offs involved for every side, good and bad.
Your book discovery process may be optimal for you, but I couldn't be further away from that. I don't really care to know Bob or Sally's taste at the local bookstore, don't know them, have 0 trust in them. (There's probably exceptions, insignificant ones though, in big cities like Austin with really cool book stores & a niche collector-kinda collection, but that's a different market to me)
Why would I care about human curated isles and shelves when I could go look up what Tyler Cowen's reading and recommending, or Marc Andreessen or Patrick Collison? Not to mention, Twitter's fantastic for this. There's very interesting people that post snippets as well of what they're reading, and build up a credibility that gives you insight into the book as well as knowing this person has a reading taste that aligns with your own.
And then once I evaluate the options, I can easily go on Amazon and get whatever I want to read in a timely manner (Not to mention using Amazon's reviews as an additional filter, the 2/3 star reviews for more critical analysis)
And? Let's assume Trump loses, Biden wins. Do you have a specific basis to say that'll significantly change things for Palantir? Noting Thiel/Trump's relationship seems insignificant.
There'll always be entrenched national defense & security + intel bureaucrats who hold power, regardless if a Democrat or Republican is in office. Seems Palantir has at least spent a pretty penny building relationships with some of those folks.
What a ridiculous comparison without context. In 2018, EFF's total support & revenue was 17.2M ($15M being public support) [0].
In 2019, the Linux foundation had $96 million in revenue and $71 million in assets [1].
In 2018, Mozilla's revenue was $450M [2].
So how could you possibly compare EFF CEO's pay to Mozilla's? If Mozilla's CEO performs 10% better than the market average CEO, that's significantly more valuable than if the same thing occurs at EFF.
The market rate of good CEO's doesn't simply decline because they work for a non-profit. It depends on the context.
Agreed with the premise of title. I think Vedica Kant does a more comprehensive job laying out where Reliance comes from & how it was shaped in her substack newsletter two-parter:
Just because Google Cloud doesn't break out its revenue, doesn't mean its a sign of trouble.
It makes complete sense, they're obviously in the third position. Why put additional shareholder pressure that can put an enterprise in a position where they're incentivized towards short-term gains vs. the long play that this is..
Because SaaS isn't cloud computing. SaaS is essentially a fully available software application that you don't run on your own machines.
There's similarities, but key differences that you can easily look up to better understand. Hence part of why most aren't huge fans of including O365 to claim Azure's bigger than AWS.
That seems more like an entrenched opinion that you've continually looked to reaffirm instead of opening your perspective.
First, serious work & powerpoint? Really? Yeah in an enterprise organization that's largely stuck doing what they've been doing because it's worked - sure, but that's not a technology issue, it's a culture issue.
For example, Google Sheets covers 80-90% of the use cases for Excel. But that's not what you should be comparing. A lot of what folks use spreadsheets for to do complicated calculations, have built lengthy, stitched together macros to automate processes, etc. would be much better in many cases to consider a completely alternate approach.
i.e a data warehouse, hey use a service like BigQuery that requires minimal adminstration and requires users to really only have SQL knowledge.
In order to effectively work across a large organization across different functions, product lines, etc., you have to remove every point of friction that prevents collaboration, etc. Desktop Office is great for individual work, but in today's dynamics, it really seems like you put a ceiling on productivity by sticking to it.
That's a good rule of thumb to have as a guideline. I wonder as a start-up that obviously has to balance trade-offs, but how do you prioritize hiring customer success folks vs hiring sales folks.
Especially with enterprise customers - ultimately, each can be as productive a pipeline, even moreso long-term, than an individual salesperson.
To be fair, "the licensing isn't completely miserable like their other product" isn't exactly a selling point.
My two cents from what I've seen (note mainly see GSuite sie of things).. You can get much more productivity & actual collaboration with G Suite, dependent on a few factors.
One, there has to be total buy-in @ the executive level because you most likely need to completely re-think how work gets done across every function. Often, we do what we've been doing and don't see the full picture because of that existing perspective.
So that requires a legit G Suite partner to help execute change management as for O365 I imagine. It's not so much a risk unless you do it for the wrong reasons; They've done it enough times to have a proven migration formula. Saving licensing costs for example should be on the bottom of your considerations because that more or less evens out and becomes irrelevant.
It's simply a tweet to say he gets more value from talking directly with the founders about what he wants to know. Seems pretty reasonable to me, but I could see how a certain audience would say ** context and ignore to categorize it as "controversial edgy tweets". Easy to rile those people up though without challenging the algo.