You might manage the same if you’re rich enough to hire top-tier advisors. Let’s not kid ourselves—OG Facebook wasn’t a tech marvel or even particularly original. It just landed in the right place at the right time and snowballed from there.
This makes no sense in Zuckerberg's case: he was never hired by the board and they've never had a chance to fire him. Investors can sell the stock if they don't like what he does, but that is not a "professional advisor" relationship.
It's mostly a cult of personality relationship, and you're deep in it with your belief that Zuckerberg is an unusually capable operator.
Independently on what you think of Zuckerberg as a human being, on the basis of acquisitions alone, he can be judged as an insanely effective CEO. The way Meta managed the shift from Facebook to Instagram is impressive from a strategic point of view.
Heck, Meta literally controls the world most popular chat application. I never liked social media, spent most of the past fifteen years avoiding them as much I could while maintaining just enough presence to stay reachable and a Meta application still remain my most used one.
Let's not forget that Google, for all their billions, utterly failed to significantly attack Meta market.
Meta has been effective at being the owner of Instagram, even though that's because they've smartly mostly been staying hands off on it besides integrating it with Facebook wherever makes most sense. And also even though the platform is also getting long in the tooth, becoming a place dominated by brands rather than the hip kids' club it was in the past. Now it just seems like the default social media profile for people to connect with one another, like how FB was before it.
I wonder what if Facebook's attempts to buy Snapchat had gone through. Would they have been an effective steward of that platform as well, or would it have gone the way of Twitter-acquired Vine? Would Snapchat even have been a good acquisition target? Okay, maybe it's not productive to discuss counterfactuals, but it does make one consider if we're self-selecting for big hits here and ignoring all of the duds that never amounted to anything- and the potential duds that didn't go through because the founders didn't want to just take the money.
WhatsApp I'll grant you, hard to think of any alternate chat app that could've gotten as ubiquitous as it did. Though, again, was that also mostly WhatsApp's own success, amplified by Facebook's ubiquity? Not to mention, Google being as incompetent at chat as it is at social, Apple unwilling to entertain servicing other operating systems, and Blackberry, AOL, MSN Messenger, etc. having disappeared long ago.
Interestingly, Meta hasn't seem interested in trying to compete with "channelized" IRC chatroom-style apps in the vein of Slack or Discord. Maybe there's some enterprise Messenger for Businesses that does that, idk.
I already agreed with the correction - he has voting control.
What is still incorrect is imagining that billions of dollars gets you advisors who know how to run a company - and those people aren't just high level executives already running companies.
> you're deep in it with your belief that Zuckerberg is an unusually capable operator.
The burden is on you to show a successful CEO for over a decade is actually an idiot.
The moment the U.S. moved to ban TikTok, users immediately flocked to an even worse Chinese platform.
People don’t actually care about privacy or digital sovereignty — not when convenience and clout are on the line.
It's a matter of degree. The average Joe cares about privacy and tech sovereignty too, but not to the extent that he would sign off a platform where the rest of his friends are.
I upgraded from Kindle Keyboard to Kindle 2023 last year. Backlight is very nice and I appreciate its lighter weight, but otherwise it's pretty much the same.
Yup yup yup. I cracked my keyboard and got a paperwhite. I love the dark mode for late night reading but would probably go back to a refurbished keyboard in the face of any strife; just like the old form factor more.
HDMI has several versions with compatible connectors. Later versions of the spec use some previously-unused pins, if you buy a cable without those wires connected (pre-1.4) you won't get Ethernet over HDMI or the audio return channel. Also, just like Cat 3 phone cable, Cat 5/5e/6 optionally-shielded Ethernet cables, the data lines can be designed for different clock rates.
An ancient cable wired into the walls of your early-2000s home theater may legitimately not support your new 4k HDR gear.
And frankly - the know-it-all customers are still right...
In the large majority of use-cases, the cheap cable is going to do fine.
In the small minority of cases it won't... choosing to buy the newer spec cable from a company that's promoting obvious bullshit (like gold contacts) just screams "I'm getting scammed". If the only version of the new spec HDMI cable you carry is a needlessly upmarket and expensive version of the cable... assume they're slinking off to amazon for good reason... to go buy the cheap version of the right spec cable online.
Nvidia promises to give you your frames back, but they will be triple buffered and may be replaced during runtime with newer frames. Render now while supplies last!
