I think about it the other way. Businesses with high $/revenue per employee, high margin, etc. tend to be fundamentally better managed and more robust.
I'm not claiming that applies to Nvidia either way specifically, but it's a good sign in the generic:
1. They're efficient.
2. They've avoided the curse of overhiring (hi, Google!)
3. They can stay afloat even if business drops a lot.
But this article is about market cap not revenue. But even revenue is almost meaningless for the things you mention -- it's profit per employee which would be interesting. And for that, tech companies are nowhere near the top.
Looks like Princeton tops the Ivy League (and perhaps all universities?) at $27M per faculty member. I often like to call it "a hedge fund with hobbies"
> Believe it or not, elite universities are reaching similar heights. MIT is at roughly $20M endowment per faculty member.
If you ran MIT, what do you think a good endowment amount per faculty member would be?
I’m not sure $20m is far off from optimal.
I might go down to $15m, with an annual draw down $750k so (5%) per year to cover burdened labor rate of average professor and certain percentage (half?) to go to “support” (i.e., everything else, including libraries, staff, maintenance, maybe grad student funding, etc.). Even that seems sort of on the tight side.
I couldn’t find the number quickly, but tuition is not a big funding source for the university. They are quite generous with tuition grants. This might not be true for the MBA program, but probably is for many/most other programs.
> … and they didn't receive any research grants.
Yeah. This is where I think one needs to look at exactly where expenses go. Grants don’t go as far as some folks think they do.
Anyway, what’s your number with things being as they are?
I’m still ok with $15-20m, and I am not particularly fond of university admins and the way they run things.
An endowment is entirely different from a market capitalization.
How can you write "employees might include staff" and keep a straight face? Yes, they do, how is this even in question? MIT has 1089 faculty members but 17,180 employees total. That's a 15x difference.
Surely growth measures require repeated testing (so one can see how the differences between student at Time A vs. Time B), not necessarily adaptive tests? Maybe I'm missing something; could you help me understand?
Also, the SBAC test administered in California, Washington, and many others is now adaptive, but still schools are measured based on point-in-time aggregates.
I can elaborate a little bit but not a lot since that would be essay-length. I can simplify and explain roughly.
The short story is that most states assessments are designed almost as binary measures, to see if students are above or below a cutoff threshold set by Common Core State Standards. They're designed to measure schools, and in particular, to flag failing schools where kids aren't meeting standards.
They're very good at that, actually.
However, that's almost meaningless as a measure for kids well above or below standards, or unaligned to standards.
"Growth" is almost meaningless here. If I know one number is less than three and another less than four, I can't subtract them.
It's more mathematically fancy, but that's the jist. It gets even worse since measures constructs are highly multidimensional and different dimensions are measured each year. It's like subtracting apples from oranges.
It also encourages the wrong behavior. For kids behind, I'll get the best "growth" by discussing on grade level material and leaving gaps for what kids failed to learn before. I'll also do well to ignore my students who are ahead. Indeed, students who did week last year will inevitably hurt my "growth."
As a footnote, I would not call this a strong claim. Talk to a psychometrician and you'll see it's common knowledge.
If adaptive tests move beyond those few states, the problem goes away.
Google has entered into a phase where short term profits outweigh long term growth.
If you're a startup, don't do this. Maximizing the growth exponent does a lot more than tweaks on per-user revenue. Intentionally annoying users is bad business.
When companies do this, it's also good to look at PE ratios, since it suggests they don't anticipate growth.
It might well be good for business, but I'm cheering that the slow erosion of trust with Google continues and leads to their demise in a decade or so. The cherry on the cake would be if we can get lawmakers with a backbone to put such companies in check.
No one is suggesting Google should encourage anything. Openly user-hostile actions devalue brand and trust. That's doubly-true for power users who are thought leaders.
If Walmart has store security shoot suspected shoplifters and unionizers with a 9mm, discontinuing that policy would not be encouraging unions or shoplifting.
> No one is suggesting Google should encourage anything.
This is a straw man. I obviously didn't mean that I thought you suggested that Google should explicitly tell people to use ad-blockers.
Now tell me how not doing anything to discourage people from blocking YouTube ads supports Google's long term interests. Or tell me how they could discourage people from blocking their ads without "[devaluing] brand and trust."
> Now tell me how not doing anything to discourage people from blocking YouTube ads supports Google's long term interests
Google maintains a monopoly and their brand. Profits are entire the of percent lower by the few power users who use all blockers. Big-O profits remain similar.
That contrasts with real competition, brand loss, or monopoly loss. That can lead to astronomically lower profits.
Content you have voluntarily published under the terms of a platform, which presumably grants StakOverflow all commercial rights, won't fall under GDPR. You can request your personal information to be deleted, not the content you produced under contract and which you no longer own.
There are legislations where you always retain the moral rights to anything you produce (those cannot be waived) and the authors here could argue that this partnership is negatively affecting their moral rights.
I don't think it's been tried before but that sounds like a possible legal path to taking down the content
Not sure how GDPR applies to content you wrote using another service. GDPR does not apply to the content you wrote on Facebook, it only applies to your personal information Facebook is collecting while you write said content.
GDPR does (fortunately) not grant the right to dictatorially sabotage a tree of content at the hand of one user, if exercising this right is in conflict with other peoples interest.
In the case of StackOverflow post are a contribution to the collective knowledge base rather than personal data. If your posts do not contain personally identifiable information, StackOverflow can easily argue that the content does not fall under GDPR’s scope for deletion based solely on personal data grounds.
Stylometric analysis can be used to link texts you write to your identity, even if written anonymously. These are grounds to claim the texts you write are inherently personal. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stylometry
Pretty sure gdpr requires you write to them first, and if they don't comply, you write to the data commissioner. E.g: https://ico.org.uk/make-a-complaint/
It's annoying that people treat GDPR like a magic word that lets them do whatever they want. It only covers personal data -- as in, your name, address, phone number, email, any other identifiable information, etc.
IANAL, but disagree. In the context of business relationships, tortious interference is "intentionally acting to prevent someone from successfully establishing or maintaining business relationships with others".
GRJ is not preventing anyone from maintaining a business relationship with Google.
That Google might -choose- to end a business relationship is on them, but they weren't prevented from having a relationship with their YouTube 'customer', or vice versa.
It's more complex. If my app causes someone else to violate ToS, it's very much on realm of the types of things which lead to expensive litigations as I've seen in related domains.
No. It's not. Pushing down car ownership might be good, but not based on wealth. Priority should go to elderly, people with disabilities, people with kids, etc.
Even so, the goal shouldn't be fewer cars but less miles driven.
The kind of antagonistic approach you prescribe rarely leads to good policy.
Cars are massively subsidized, and requiring that they be safer reduces some of their externalities a bit, raising their cost and lowering that subsidy. That's a good thing.
Speeding makes roads less safe too. Wouldn’t you agree that there would be a net reduction in serious injury and death from enforcing the speed limit?
> It’s very common to need to accelerate in emergency situations
Very common to accelerate past the speed limit when you’re already at/above it? Acceleration is usually useful as a safety tool when you’re at a stop and want to cross before oncoming traffic reaches the intersection. Your acceleration from a stop would not be limited beyond what your drivetrain can do.
I think there are soft mechanisms which could enforce speed limits which would need both needs.
Even an obnoxious beeper like for seatbelts.
I prefer the seatbelt beeper to having seatbelts which won't unfasten until the car has come to a complete stop, or cars which don't start without seatbelts. Not everything needs to be enforced with force.
Evidence indicates that speed limits need to be enforced by some other method. Nearly 1/3 of all fatal accidents are a result of speeding. Speeding is so commonplace that people barely even pay attention to it.
Seatbelt laws are important, however they have much less impact on the people around the vehicle. Speeding kills pedestrians and other drivers.
Fatality rates drop dramatically with lowered speed. I have yet to see an emergency situation where acceleration makes any difference. Brakes are often an order of magnitude more powerful than the car's engine.
Never been in the path of a speeding police car or ambulance rushing to an emergency from behind you and wanted to get out of the way at the next intersection, just 100m ahead?
Statistics didn't support you. Look at deaths per mile for vehicles. The worst ones are lumbering hulks which can't do avoidance maneuvers.
If you are in the path of a police car or ambulance, you are required to slow down and pull over to the right. Death rates per mile have a loose correlation to vehicle size. However, engine size has a high correlation to deaths per mile. Sports cars love to kill their drivers.
I would encourage you to look more closely. Safest mainstream car is Chevy Bolt which (1) isn't bought by douchebags to show off (2) does 0-60 on 6.6 seconds, on par with muscle cars, exactly as I described.
So would you say that Chevy Bolt drivers tend to drive slower? And are thus safer? Why should douchebags be able to buy cars that drive 100+mph on public roads?
You're passing a broken-down vehicle, a deer that hoped into the road, a toddler, or otherwise go into the opposite lane. There is an incoming car, and you need to merge back before a head-on collision, without hitting whatever you're passing.
Floor it and merge.
I can name many other scenarios, but generally, emergency maneuvers are helped by good control over the car, including braking, turning, and acceleration.
There are nice charts showing accidents per million miles driven by car, and the best ones I've seen are anyone, but not testosterone-promoting agile. Crash ratings are misleading since many of the safest cars in a crash also crash a lot more often and have higher fatalities overall since bigger cars are less likely to be able to avoid an accident.
In all of the instances you mention, it is recommended that you use your brakes. NOT go faster. Who sees a toddler in the road and floors it? Are you avoiding rocket children?
If swerving into another lane to avoid a toddler rather than stopping is a “common” scenario, you already sound like a psychopathically reckless driver. In none of those situations should you be swerving into the wrong side of traffic. You should be stopping. And then, if necessary, carefully going into the other lane.
Your examples are comically dangerous
Edit: in fact, specifically you remind me of Richard Horne in twin peaks season 3:
So, you are driving in such a manner that you cannot stop in time for toddlers, deer, or broken down cars. Perhaps if you were driving slower you would not need to swerve into oncoming traffic to avoid road hazards?
I'm not claiming that applies to Nvidia either way specifically, but it's a good sign in the generic:
1. They're efficient.
2. They've avoided the curse of overhiring (hi, Google!)
3. They can stay afloat even if business drops a lot.
reply