Is your take that Microsoft should offer this for free? Or if they are not willing to do it for free, Microsoft should cancel this service and we should wait for Apache or someone else to offer the service?
Or something else ?
@WisNorCan | Hacker News
From 6/11/2017, 3:53:02 PM till now, @WisNorCan has achieved 3614 Karma Points with the contribution count of 232.
Recent @WisNorCan Activity
It depends on what the goal of the exercise is.
There are substantially fewer CEOs relative to SWEs. If your goal is to help the most impoverished, you are better off reallocating salary from SWEs than CEOs.
You might be surprised. I suspect people will be quick to identify the problem with CEO pay but not use the same logic to identify the problem with SWE pay.
If you feel like your salary is too high compared to Cambodian workers, why don’t you do something about it? For example, donate 50% of it to a charity in Cambodia helping poor people?
I find these articles lacking any nuance.
“CEOs pandemic greed grab has sparked outrage among Americans across the political spectrum”
Guess what the wage gap is between a software engineer in the US and the average worker in Cambodia? About 100x. The average salary in Cambodia is about $2000 per year.
Is that wrong? Are engineers too greedy? No. Supply & demand for specific skills drive the rates in each market.
And all companies that focus on selling to other startups. Like Brex. They were the first to pop during the dot com bust.
So far. We are early in the cycle. Hiring freezes and layoffs are just starting.
If this keeps on for multiple years (like the dot com bust) then it will get very painful.
I am fairly sure Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos & Elon Musk would have failed this test. Are you better off having them at your company or not?
Luang Pho Daeng
3 points • 0 comments
That is true. But you would expect that they would have found something really substantive to show after 25 years of investing in technology.
I am not sure what the lesson is. But something seems to have gone really wrong for Netflix. Not just on the content side, but also with their technology investments.
The most perplexing thing about Netflix is that even though they have a reputation for hiring the best, I can’t think of a single way that the experience is better than Disney, HBO or Apple TV.
And this is after 25 years of investing in technology.
Top Universities for Startup Founders
2 points • 1 comments
Amazon to conduct racial-equity audit led by former Attorney General Lynch
2 points • 1 comments
Yahoo braves shareholders’ ire in refusing Microsoft’s $47bn offer (2008)
5 points • 1 comments
You can just read the statements from Ballmer and others on what they were excited about. I wasn’t on the deal team, but I worked with them on parts of it. The statements below are reflective of the belief.
Occam’s razor would suggest that Microsoft and Yahoo’s exec teams both talking about the value of the Yahoo Internet services as the rationale for the deal probably is the truth. And Microsoft would have paid much more than 10% of the $45B to get it.
——
Microsoft sees Yahoo as a way to compete with arch-rival Google Inc GOOG.O in the Internet search and advertising arena, but it has limits to what it is willing to pay to get a deal done.
“We’re prepared to move forward without a merger with Yahoo,” Ballmer said. “We think the best way to move forward quickly (and gain critical mass against Google) is to come together with Yahoo.”
100% agree. I believe Microsoft would have made a mess of the acquisition. Microsoft had the same issues internally with their MSN/Live strategy at the time. Integrating Yahoo + MSN/Live was unlikely to succeed.
That is separate from saying that Yahoo shareholders would have benefited from selling to Microsoft.
That is fair.
However I don’t think that applies here. if the board truly believed it, they would have sold the “pure Yahoo” piece to Microsoft for far more than $4.5B and spun out the Alibaba stake. They didn’t and ended up losing billions in shareholder value.
No.
Yahoo got lucky with the Alibaba stake. That wasn’t what Microsoft was after. Microsoft was desperate to be relevant in Internet consumer services and compete with Google.
Yang and the board believed they could fix Yahoo. None of their predictions came true.
—-
“In an email to Yahoo employees after the board's rejection of the Microsoft offer was made public, Chief Executive Jerry Yang maintained that the company is well-positioned to grow, citing the Internet powerhouse's efforts to improve its standing in online advertising and build an alliance with newspapers.
"We have accomplished a great deal in a very short time," Yang said. "Yahoo is a faster-moving, better-organized, more nimble company well on its way to transforming the experiences of its users, advertisers, publishers and developers."
He said the company aims to "grow visits to key Yahoo starting points and properties by approximately 15% per year over the next several years."
https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/yahoo-rejects-bid-micr...
Twitter reminds me a lot of Yahoo about a decade ago. A company that lost its way. Cycling through lots of CEOs, re-orgs and visions and a culture that atrophied along the way.
Microsoft offered to buy Yahoo for $45B in 2008. The board of directors declined, believing in much more upside. Yahoo became increasingly irrelevant. They later sold to Verizon for $4.5B
https://www.onmsft.com/news/its-finally-over-yahoo-is-acquir...
Yes! We finally found a good use for the blockchain.
site design / logo © 2022 Box Piper