If people need to be retained for many years, is the solution to give a bunch of stock that vests over many years? It would be interesting if such incentives (the need to hang onto talent that has been incubated for many years) could bring about a return to one-company careers.
> I like my drinks really sour, so I might add another… 10 g of citric acid to this batch.
IIRC it's not a great idea to drink carbonated beverages with lots of sugar or acid. Each of these elements weakens your teeth, and in combination the effect is much greater.
The author has written a famous book on college admissions, but this piece doesn't really seem to add much to the discussion. I came away thinking that his publicist recommended he get his name out there more to help his brand or sell some more books.
More people read the Atlantic than read books on college admissions. It is possible and often useful to increase the number of informed people even without adding net new information.
I don't think the book that he's famous for talks about the demographic trends much at all. It's just something that parents are aware of, and that is talked about as one of the ways in which admissions numbers will change in the next decade or two.
Seems like the headline should have been "is now dead on arrival". As currently written, it fails to convey the temporal aspect that is the focus of the blog post.
It also fails to convey that he's actually only talking about startups that were created 2+ years ago, rather than the many AI startups founded in the last 2 years.
I have tried to get my wife to pause some of our subs but she absolutely refuses. She says "we're not poor" (we are not) and apparently just wants to spend $70/mo on these damn things.
Even if costs were lower, I still think we should not have so many, since it spoils our kids. I don't want them to see TV as "we have access to everything all the time". I want them to see that there are tradeoffs, and understand that we could have hundreds of dollars more if we had Netflix for half the year and Disney+ for half the year, for example.
There's also something to be said for restarting a sub and being excited to watch content that you had been waiting to see.
I remember when there were 3 networks. I remember when those networks stopped broadcasting content around midnight by playing the national anthem and then playing bars or just going off the air. I used to think the concept of UHF is kind of lost, but then realized it's kind of just what YouTube has become-weird, random, wacky content produced by just about anybody that can hit record on a camera.
True... but it was never really the same... IMO Saturday Mornings were kind of a special event before there were 24/7 cartoon network etc. Even if 2/3 of it was of dubious quality.
My wife and I realized we were spending too much _time_ just watching shows we didn't really like.
So we paused on ALL paid streaming services.
The "effort" it takes to a watch a movie on Kanopy, and the fact a movie is only two hours, gives us a lot of value. It's not a money thing, it's a "what am I spending my time on" thing.
I remember as a kid, mostly having access to HBO/Showtime etc during their "free" week/month that came along about once a year or so. I think my dad subbed for a couple months once, but that was it. Otherwise it was just basic cable and nothing else.
Even then, 90% of the time was watching local/broadcast networks via cable.
Some of the services end up being very expensive, like ebook lending. Some publishers basically charge libraries per loan ($X for an ebook that lasts Y loans), so while it is nice for residents it's not clear that it's a good value, or that it's a good use of tax money.
I once heard from a knowledgeable source that most of library lending is bodice rippers. These are available from Amazon/etc. pretty cheaply, which undercuts the value argument. And of course, there's practically no social value of providing the public with free bodice rippers...
I'd be interested to know more about the economics of lending DVDs and Blu-rays. Hopefully libraries get a better deal on these.
If most of lending were made up of educational texts, there would be a social value. Some people describe bodice rippers as porn for women, and people get addicted to them in the same way they get addicted to porn.
Would a library ever lend porn out? I'm guessing no, because of the lack of social value. To the extent that bodice rippers are like porn, the same rationale would apply.
Nope, because even if bodice rippers are not pure porn, it's not clear why libraries should subsidize entertainment for patrons. I'm not saying it's a terrible use of taxpayer money, just disagreeing with OP who said it's "such a great use of tax money". It does not bring people together, educate them, or provide for the common defense. Why not have movie theaters be government-run? It would make as much sense as providing free smut-adjacent books for (almost entirely) women.
> While at my desk, I preferred it to the thin-sounding built-in speakers on my M4 MacBook Air.
Weird, I find the sound in my MBA to be quite good. I tried listening to podcasts through a HomePod mini and by comparison that was awful. I'd be surprised if this little IKEA speaker was substantially better than the MBA, though if so that'd be great!
The current MBA's speakers are at least 50% worse than the MBP speakers. My last job switched me from the Pro to the Air and I had both on hand to compare and it was really disappointing.
No doubt the MBP sounds better than the MBA, but I'd be pleasantly surprised if there were $10 options from IKEA that sound so significantly better than the MBA. If so, that just reinforces how badly Apple nerfed the HomePod mini, which is awful (for podcasts especially) by comparison.
I think AI will actually produce price deflation in some areas. There could be inflation based on mechanisms you describe, but it's obviously making it cheaper to make some products/services.
Why? You're going to reference them from Google Drive. Google has 400 trillion gazillion servers with copies of it. There's no way you can lose it! You wouldn't do anything weird, so there's absolutely no reason to think you'd lose your account. And honestly, we're all humans here - surely you can reach out to a company as large as Google and speak to a human if there's an issue this significant.
Another consideration: kids do not have the ability to think ahead and consider future consequences. It's one of the last functions of the brain to develop, and it doesn't fully complete until, often, you've already finished college. Looking through the comments in the reddit thread, it appears the daughter had her dissertation on her google drive and lost it despite having done nothing wrong herself.
And just the final point I want to drive home: these people lost their google accounts because of what someone else did. Nobody thinks ahead to account for something like that.
At what point are we going to start looking at digital mail the same way we do physical mail? It's equally as important today. It needs protections, regulations, and oversight.
Even if you don't think you're at risk of permanently losing access, you would want to have access during power outages or other internet outages. Or even just when you're on a plane and want to look up an old email.
Yes, they should be regulated. Or more likely outright shut down.
Nonetheless, at the moment, it's a real risk, and plenty of people do in fact think ahead and not make themselves dependent on those services.
> kids do not have the ability to think ahead and consider future consequences. It's one of the last functions of the brain to develop, and it doesn't fully complete until, often, you've already finished college.
Please stop posting kindergarten-level distortions of neuroscience. It burns.
Even just for offline access when on airplanes, when the internet/power is out. It's not just about rugpulls.
Honestly it's a bit insulting to non-HN people to assume that they'd never want offline access or realize that having a single point of failure is a bad idea.
It’s reasonable to assume that a subset of the population thinks of these things. It is not unreasonable to assume that >50% of Gmail users have never considered it.
I didn't say anything about all or most gmail users. I specifically referred to a person who relies on gmail for his business, and who is apparently screwed without access to it. People who run businesses think through their risk exposure in general, and they get things like key man insurance policies to mitigate risks related to single points of failure. Anyone thinking through such things would realize that an email provider is a single point of failure.
Completely aside from strategic business planning, plenty of people realize that gmail doesn't provide offline access. It's obvious if you try to get into your email when you're not online. This is not the sole province of experts.
I doubt every small business manager considers ‘what’s happens if I lose my gmail’, there are plenty of trades so far detached from email where that would be the case. I doubt many plumbers are checking their business email while flying, either.
It's splashier this way, and is meant to shape the narrative, make other companies fear their warchest, and make hiring easier. Of course, those who are in-the-know won't be fooled, but the perception of the general public will be set in stone by the PR framing.
reply