Since Sundar took over as CEO at Google (August 10, 2015):
- Google is up 5.2X - I am not sure how you got 152%
- Apple is up 10X
- Microsoft is up 8.25X
- Netflix is up 7.45X
- Amazon us up 7.28X
- Facebook is up 6.27X
Google has the worst returns in ten years of the FAANG(+M) companies. A 5X increase in ten years is still phenomenal, but it's important to not look at that number in isolation.
And for fun:
- Nvidia is up 207X
- Intel is down 12%
- The S&P 500 is up 2.72X
Microsoft was also up by leaps and bounds when Ballmer was in charge and RIM had its highest market cap in 2010 - three years after the iPhone was introduced.
That has nothing to do with whether Google has the ability to create new great products and it has failed miserably at that over the past decade.
Great find on the knowledge navigator, I had never seen it but I was a toddler when it was released haha.
It's interesting how prescient it was, but I'm more struck wondering--would anyone in 1987 have predicted it would take 40+ years to achieve this? Obviously this was speculative at the time but I know history is rife with examples of AI experts since the 60s proclaiming AGI was only a few years away
Is this time really different? There's certainly been a huge jump in capabilities in just a few years but given the long history of overoptimistic predictions I'm not confident
> It's interesting how prescient it was, but I'm more struck wondering--would anyone in 1987 have predicted it would take 40+ years to achieve this? Obviously this was speculative at the time but I know history is rife with examples of AI experts since the 60s proclaiming AGI was only a few years away
40+ makes it sound like you think it will ever be achieved. I'm not convinced.
It's interesting that your primary criticism is that the scientists are too diverse...truly a struggle for me to see why that's such an abhorrent error
Personally I thought they did a good job at adapting a book that I thought would be nearly impossible to transform into a "pop" sci fi series.
Seems unfair to compare a "bad trip to the dentist" to a person experiencing severe psychological effects liking being unable to make human connections and feelings of loneliness for 30 years
Many of these experiences seem to have drastically impacted peoples lives in a very negative way. Much worse than a toothache!
What does it mean to have a "bad trip to the dentist"? A dentist can also cause decades of discomfort, but most trips (both drugs and dentists) turn out great!
I have friends who work in film and have heard about the way the productions play fast and loose with "local hires" that then get reported as jobs created.
The prestige of films being made in their state keep the subsidies rolling in but there are many great "bang for your buck" subsidies states could be making that just aren't sexy.
These studies seem to focus primarily on the direct economic impact of moviemaking, but seem to not deal at all with tourism effects - and these can be significant, from benign tourism like with Star Wars [1] to outright madness like with the Breaking Bad house [2].
Yea that's fair, but I would imagine the tourism effect, although real, happens for a tiny % of overall productions.
Much like incentives for NFL stadiums, it just doesn't seem like the public gets the benefit they are promised in all the glossy announcement spreads
And to be clear I support the government subsidizing the arts like film and I miss when my state had a subsidy and a lot of famous shows/movies were filmed in places I knew. I just haven't seen the data to back up the "impact" claimed.
Having worked in film in the US, I developed a deep hatred of film tax breaks because they work. "Work" in the sense that studios will chase them, and they make it harder for companies outside a tax-advantaged location to compete and make money.
