Tech as an investment has been doing well, and that's what he is talking about. The labor market is something else. I expect a tech crash eventually that will nuke the stock market, but good luck predicting it.
Tech stocks are the market now. If you bought Nasdaq before, at peak or after dotcom bust, then you had to wait 15 years to "break even". If you bet against tech stocks (e.g. buy S&P500) then you're down.
It is historically risky to bet against the US stock market.
It's not risky to stay on the sidelines when the market is so overvalued. This is what Warren Buffet is doing. Regardless of what you think of him, he is more sophisticated than we are. Hindsight is 20/20. The market also drops every 5-10 years by 30-50%. If you take a 50% loss even once, your money has to work way harder just to get you back to where you were before. I mean, you need to double your money to recover from a 50% downfall, which is way harder than you think and prone to another major drop. Therefore, it is worth exercising some caution in your investments. If returns look too good to be true, they probably are.
Wow propaganda bullshit straight on Hackernews. This what it has come to.
After over a decade here I didn't expect to see the deterioration coming, but it's not surprising considering the state and division of your country.
Most despicable of companies.
Keeps laying off people and destroying lifelihoods in the process, cutting stock awards for others but executives get their bonuses increased by a cool 160%
This would have worked fine in a Scandinavian company where managers are expected to delegate (some/most) technical responsibility. If boss was off, and couldn’t react in time, their eventual reaction would depend entirely on the outcome. If you were successful, they’ll appreciate that you didn’t hold up the decision by asking them.
Works fine in my British company that is almost as old as America, it’s called “out of office”. If they aren’t in the decisions are delegated to someone else.
Oh please. No one got hired during Covid out of the sheer goodness of anyone's heart.
CEOs are sheep. They all do the same thing and run in the same direction.
Your competitors are hiring, you're hiring. You can't be left behind.
Your competitors are firing, you're firing. You won't be the odd man out who has to explain to the board and shareholders why you're not cleaning house when others do.
I'm not saying they hired because they were nice, and became not nice. They over-hired and now they are going to over-fire, and they pay themselves well the whole way thru.
I am saying they are rabidly resentful of the hiring they did. You can see it in leaked comments like JPM's Dimon at a local town hall where he said something to the effect of "we hired 50k people during COVID because people aren't doing their jobs and what's why none of you can WFH anymore" lol.
The way CEOs talk about now vs then is like some Old Testament fire & brimstone stuff. Like its everyones fault that he over-hired and now they should all get back to the office or face eternal damnation.
Agreed but sadly for something like Youtube it's basically impossible at this stage.
I've long replaced Mail, Maps, Calendar, Photos, Drive, etc with better alternatives from Apple and Microsoft.
> I've long replaced Mail, Maps, Calendar, Photos, Drive, etc with better alternatives from Apple and Microsoft.
Honestly it takes quite some cognitive dissonance to say that Apple's or Microsoft's products are better than Google's.
I've had multiple Microsoft accounts locked out. None of them were originally with Microsoft; they were with companies that were later bought out by Microsoft and then migrated to a Microsoft account. Goodbye Skype, Halo, Minecraft, etc. I won't ever use Office or an Xbox at this point.
And as far as Apple's concerned... well they talk the talk but their declining quality control demonstrates they don't really walk the walk. It doesn't take a genius to see where they're headed in another 10 years.
A while ago I wanted to use Visual Studio and it required a Microsoft account.
I decided I wanted to use Visual Studio enough that it was worth creating a Microsoft account for that purpose.
Then, I never did anything with the account other than use Visual Studio.
At some point, a message popped up in Visual Studio saying "the pattern of behavior for your account looks fraudulent, so we're disabling it". Visual Studio still worked fine.
I'm not sure what they were hoping would happen. They forced me to create an account I didn't want and had no use for, and then they shut it down for fraud when I didn't use it. OK?
> I'm not sure what they were hoping would happen. They forced me to create an account I didn't want and had no use for, and then they shut it down for fraud when I didn't use it. OK?
If that's all it was, then I'd just create throwaway accounts all day long.
But the writing is on the wall. Microsoft wants to associate the software you write with a Microsoft account. It builds "trust" and "legitimacy" when they can "verify" that the software being deployed into the Microsoft store (or elsewhere) was created with a specific developer with an associated Microsoft account. Data mine your git repository and associate your commit metadata (eg; name, email, etc) with other products just as they do already on GitHub. Give you extra benefits (free hosting! remove advertisements! gain extra visibility to recruiters!) if you write software that's popular, and especially if it's only available on Windows; or penalize you (you don't "qualify" for free hosting; it costs $ to remove advertisements from your app; your app has fewer enablements; your LinkedIn profile is less-visible to recruiters; etc) if you write software for other platforms (Linux, macOS, iOS, etc)...
I guess said much simpler: you see the Embrace part by Microsoft's actions. I see the Extend and Extinguish part being enabled by those actions.
In my experience, it's always been possible to use Visual Studio Community without a Microsoft account. It might recommend that you do, but you don't have to. I've been using it this way for years.
That is indeed a serious suggestion, and an absolutely correct one.
Transparency is a dependency of trust. Neither Google, Apple, nor Microsoft are transparent about the software they offer, the data that software collects, or how they use the data collected. They are in fact quite opaque about all of those things. The only assurance of privacy they offer is their word.
Apple does have the occasional third-party review of cryptography and whatnot.
Apple also have an actual, single phone support number in multiple languages and countries that you can use as a paying customer. Day and night with Google.
If I showed you that you were wrong, would you change your mind?
Usually when you ask this, people just tell you again why they're right. That means they aren't really open to changing their mind. If I can prove you're wrong, will you change your mind?
I'd absolutely change my mind if proven wrong. If any of those companies publish the source code of all the software running on their devices and servers (and can prove that said source code corresponds to what's actually deployed), then that'd be an excellent start.
"Neither Google, Apple, nor Microsoft are transparent about the software they offer, the data that software collects, or how they use the data collected."
Apple is very different than the other two here. Do you actually believe otherwise or are your goalposts just... set as to be useless?
Apple is not different from either of those two in any of those senses. No source code = no transparency. If I am incorrect about that - and Apple does openly publish all of the code that collects and interacts with their customers' data - then I would be overjoyed to be proven wrong.
That's a major component of what transparency entails, and that's what's a dependency of trust. No source code = no transparency, no transparency = no trust. Simple.
I'm at least trying to have a good-faith conversation. If you ain't interested in the same, then surely there are better things for you to do than to waste both of our time, no?
And while that's not an unreasonable rebuttal, my first argument (in agreement with yours) is that Google does not sell their users' information, and neither does Apple.
Being up in arms about the lack of privacy from Google is fair, and something I agree with. But Apple doesn't offer dramatically more privacy from Apple that I'm aware of. Both allow, but discourage, free accounts, and run ad networks (that they don't sell user information on)
I'm not even arguing there's no difference, just that there's less than everyone likes to pretend
reply