Yea but be careful, I checked out coffeescript years ago (technically a "transpile" to JS). I changed the language then built a new compiler with it.
However I apparently added some error in the language and the compiler was then broken, so I couldn't make my fix and re-transpile without checking out a clean version of the repo :D
Me too - now that the Uber app has tipping I choose to tip a nominal amount ($2 usually each trip). But prior to them adding it I was happy to not tip at all, even if in the end the price point for the trip was $2 higher.
I'd prefer driver compensation to be worked out on Uber's end of things rather than being passed to the consumer. I know that's what tipping is - but I'm against payment structures that require tipping. I still tip because I don't want to put it on the driver/waiter/whatever, but I'd prefer for the price point to be higher and to not tip.
> "I remember when we raised money from Bill Gates...and Gates said something along the lines of, 'That’s a crock of shit. This isn’t a platform. A platform is when the economic value of everybody that uses it, exceeds the value of the company that creates it. Then it’s a platform.'"
Interesting. But Facebook's platform != Facebook, so I don't understand the maxim that "the value of everybody that uses the platform must exceed the value of the company that created it" in order for it to be true.
You could say Apple's App Store and Google's Play Store are platforms, they even offer services (api/web-services, libs, frameworks, etc.) and devs build on-top and make living off it. But that ISN'T the company. Google has search, cars, ads, etc. Apple has it's own crap going.
Furthermore, Apple is worth 1 trillion dollars. Must the value of the platform as determined by "everybody that uses it" exceed 1 trillion? Or must it exceed the yearly revenue of Apple instead?
I believe this use of the word "platform" in this context is a much more specific meaning where it's a counterpoint to the idea of an "aggregator." It comes up in discussions about modern large tech companies being "aggregators" or "platforms," and this is the point (allegedly) Gates is making here, that Facebook is much more an aggregator of content that users bring into the walled garden than they are an economic platform for other businesses, which is what Microsoft was/is.
If you believe that all this advertising spending and social media marketing activity actually adds more to companies on Facebook than it does to Facebook itself, then you sort of could call Facebook a platform per this definition. An advertising platform.
Right they are a multinational advertising corporation that tricks people into believing that Facebook.com = Facebook. It’s still a crock of shit however you want to slice it up.
right, Gates misspoke or it was misreported.
It should be something like - the economic value that everybody derives from using it exceeds the value the company derives from their use of it.
At the time though I believe all of Facebook's economic value came from Facebook, so that the was the worth of the company.
> WhatsApp and Instagram acquisitions needed approvals from EU before they could continue.
What would it mean for a US based company if they decided to acquire two other US based companies and US regulators approved it, but EU regulators didn't?
What would happen if the company went forward with the acquisition anyway?
Most likely, the company would be fined and ordered to either sell off the company or agree to some other set of penalties. If they refused to pay the fine or perform their penalties, they could be banned from operating in the EU. They'd be unable to advertise in the EU, make deals with EU companies, employ people and set up datacentres in the EU, etc etc.
Companies like Facebook aren't "US based" in any way that means anything except for where their CEO normally works and which stock exchange their shares are traded on - they have operations that are central to their business all over the world, and many of those can be disrupted.
They will have to satisfy regulators from all major regions where they want to operate. Non-compliance results financial, or criminal penalties or not being allowed to operate in EU.
In theory FB could just agree with EU that they will cease all operations in EU and leave in peace, but that would effectively kill FB over long term. Competitors would crush them. Imagine a mobile carrier who can't make calls to EU or email provider who can't sent or receive calls from EU. FB is in the same situation. It's a social network. Value for the users comes from connections.
Every international company negotiates some kind of deal if they want to stay international.
What if the accusation was false and it were made publicly? Or at the very least, if whisperings went around and all my (or your) co-workers found out about the accusation?
"Guilt" in the court of public opinion is a real thing and this industry is smaller than most people realize. You may try to get another job only to find the same people from your previous job are at the new one, know people there, or that word has just gotten around about you whether online and searchable or through word of mouth. Or maybe someone calls a previous employer and they mention why you were let go?
All for something that was false?
Would it count as slander/libel in this case? You could make the argument that it led to lost earnings or whatever too.
I wonder if this is also a result of simple career progression.
How do people go up the ladder if there's already people at the top? With people living longer, more women working, etc the organization has to create more positions at the top or lose talent?
Same here - I keep failing the "algorithm" phone screeners.
I've been in software dev for a decade but don't have a comp sci degree and it shows a bit. Every few years when looking for a new job I stress and try to re-learn these algorithms that I only ever need to know for these interviews.
> I don't think VC firms fund poets or musicians :)
How would you fund a poet or musician in your funding model?
Do they put an idea for a song or some such on the board and it's voted on? Who decides what poet is good or bad (it's entirely subjective?)
Also what's the payout for investment in a poet? They aren't likely to start a company.
So if I'm going to start a company and I take your investment is it "fair" that a poet receives the same investment but doesn't have to fork over a % back to you like I'll have to?
Singaporeans at least have the right to leave. Chinese people aren't even free to migrate internally.
Singaporean internet access is significantly freer than Chinese. Singapore has freer markets, more rule of law.
They don't have a real democracy, and there are restrictions on speech, but it's absolutely crazy to equate it with China. If China turns into Singapore as it gets richer it'll be a humanitarian miracle.
Unfortunately I share your skepticism. Not because of Singapore as a counterexample, though, but because of China-to-date. They haven't been liberalising, they have been getting less free, more nationalistic and so on. The Party has increased its control on every part of life and all levers of government. I can't see why that trend should reverse.
However I apparently added some error in the language and the compiler was then broken, so I couldn't make my fix and re-transpile without checking out a clean version of the repo :D