There are quite a few analysts who have Facebook pegged at long-term 10% of it's current valuation. And some that have it a long-term 0. Facebook is good at solving a problem. It's just not a problem that makes it worth 184 times earnings.
And guess what, we issue about 3-5k of them a year, which happens to be exactly what he says he wants.
Of course, O1 requires under penalty real certification of excellence.
What Mr. Graham really wants of course is to find promising young programmers, bring them to the US for next to nothing, pay them a middling wage, and then cut him or her loose as soon that venture goes tits up. Then we have another programmer floating around, willing to work for below market wages.
I'll say it: there's not a shortage of programmers, there's a shortage of valid business plans. That's SV's real problem.
Exactly. That is perfect. Silicon Valley culture sucks. The best don't all want to work there, toiling on some stupid app or web project that's going to crash and burn when Series A dry's up and you can't raise Series B.
I have a few thoughts:
1. Mr. Graham can drop dead. I had to look up who this guy is, Y Combinator has produced such companies as:
Scribd, reddit, Airbnb, Dropbox, Disqus, Stripe
These are not the companies that make the US a "tech superpower". We have a document sharing company, an online community that is 33% porn, 33% cats, and 33% reposts, a house-sharing operation that is constantly on the run from regulators, a company that resells cloud storage to end users, a company that facilitates cat-posts online, and a credit card payment processor. News flash, the world let alone the United States does not revolve around Silicon Valley and your narrow alleged needs. This guy is crazy if he thinks we are going to screw with the iron clad law of supply-and-demand and let in a "few thousand programmers" for no good reason.
2. Mr. Graham knows that he can already get in the very best programmers. We have plenty of avenues for letting in the very best. For one, it means, we have a real shortage. Secondly, it might mean we educate them here. Finally, it may mean you have to really invest in attracting the top talent internationally. That may mean - gasp - setting up foreign operations, and then domesticating the worker after a few years. That's right, Mr. Graham, years. What he really means is "we want to attract the best programmers, for cheap, chain them to a job, and then wash our hands of them when the job dries up or it doesn't work out".
3. This is yet another case of an over-privileged idiot trying to social costs and privatize profits.
4. The reason you can't find as many American top programmers to work for you is because Silicon Valley sucks. The culture sucks, the location (esp. real estate) sucks, the working environment sucks, the stability sucks. It's just another gold rush scenario, this time with Aeron chairs and floor to ceiling whiteboards, and lots of fast talk. And let's be honest. The work sucks. Most of these starts up are doing nothing at all really useful. A huge majority will fail, suddenly, having wasted everyone's time and someone poor suckers money. Spinning this as disruptive, or revolutionary is sad, and a lot of people are jaded against it. The company structure sucks. There are many programmers who have been to three, four, five failed startup operations, going through the same stress, the same pain, the same loss only to end up being told they are now too old for another try at the pie. There are no plans to provide for a long-term company, no hope for a business that is lasting and built upon solving problems that people are willing to pay to have solved.
5. The fact that Mr. Graham and his friends can't attract a few thousand of the best of the best to work for them just means that the costs outweigh the rewards. Instead of fixing their toxic culture, failing mentality, and gold rush dynamic, they want to break the country further. Because they feel entitled to have what they want, without putting in the years, or decades that other industries have to make it to stability. They've already been given a subsidized work force, where they feel entitled to reap the top talent for middling pay, massive cultural influence, outsized political influence, and regulatory preferences. And yet, they've done almost nothing for the country. We are plus 10 new billionaires, but there has been no standard of living bump for most Americans.
TLDR: Drop dead, Mr. Graham. You do something for the country, and the rest of flyover territory will think about doing something for you.
... the companies pushing for more visas are NOT doing it because they're looking for the best and the brightest from around the world. They're doing it to drive the price of programming
They're also creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. The depressed prices for programmers and refusal of employers to hire Americans (for any but a few top-level jobs requiring rare or broad-ranging talents and experience), while importing H1Bs from several countries for any position short of startup principals and early-hires, has not been missed by the Millenials. The latter are, entirely rationally, avoiding computer science degree programs in droves.
There is no shortage of US computer scientists now. But if this keeps up, in another 20 years there WILL be a shortage of YOUNG US computer scientists.
Most kids don't want the sort of games sold at GOG. It's about 90% really old stuff. I only play it out of nostalgia.
Luckily for my country, most of people can be swayed by money. Big salary, and low taxes and houses with a big yard as still affordable for a professional.
Brain drain is vitally important to America's future, these ideological games being played by xenophobes and people with anti-immigration politics may result in some very serious long term consequences. (yes, I'm basically stating that we cheat to stay on top.)
A nation that is manufacturing less every year, and has zero growth in agriculture, but continues to have a significant population growth needs to have a plan for the future.
As for people who are worried we'll [continue to] hire armies of cheap labor under H1B visa program, I would much rather compete with a foreign worker who is located in the US, than compete with that same worker in his own country. At least he's paying taxes and rent here, and spending some of his money in the local economy. If they decide to apply for citizenship, I welcome them. We can complain about elections and jury duty together.
So these types of threats are being taken seriously.
What was that about surrendering essential freedoms to gain temporary security?
You have negative freedom, that is freedom from interference and limits on your behavior
And that's the only freedom there can be...
Then you have positive freedom, the freedom to participate in society and to prosper.
You are confused. The freedoms to participate in society and to prosper are the same as those from interference and limits. One does not have a right to prosperity and/or happiness, but only to a pursuit of them — America's founding fathers noted this right in the Declaration of Independence (before the war was won and the Constitution written).
In Europe that kind of thing would clash with a person's freedom to have a private life, i.e. to privately grieve for their loved on at the funeral.
This makes no sense — you can not have a right to privacy in a public place. Those crazy Democrats "thanking god" for dead American soldiers may be an extreme case, but if you devise a law to shut them up, will it not also apply to weddings and birthdays, which are bound to take place on the same block, where other folks are grieving?
We also see the right to a private life
I fail to see, how you can demand privacy while in public — and that includes your making connections to other people's servers.
US company's desire to profile everyone and use their personal data for commercial gain, which Europeans consider to be a massive loss of freedom but Americans consider to be a corporation exercising its free speech rights.
No, actually, one's right to record and remember whatever he has once observed has nothing to do with free speech. I, once again, fail to see, how you can possibly demand somebody forgets about you without opening yourself up to the same demands from others. Do you want your ex- to be able to force you to undergo a memory-alteration procedure — to make you forget, how she looks naked?
If you were given an Xbone for xmas you will not be playing anything today. It will take at LEAST 6 hours to update the box, then any game you buy will have a 20-40gb "patch" that will need to download.
It's the biggest SUCK there is about the Xbox One.
This is like a moron that wants the special gold plated PS4 with free T-shirt over a standard PS4 and is willing to pay a $50 premium for some spraypaint and t-shirt.
$199 Nexus 7 blows the nokia tablet out of the water hard.
Nexus tablet is better in every way, and they price this thing at Mini ipad pricing? are they nuts?
Dont buy any of this crap, Nexus7 or Samsung Pro tab 12.2 are the only two real android tablets at honest pricing.
Yes that 12.2 tablet is sexy as freaking hell and the most business usable tablet out there. it lets me view CAD files perfectly with clients.
Yet the article and the conclusion is that this app doesn't track you because of hyper sensitivity to privacy, even though their experience and most surveyed users WANT that feature. So, clickbait headline or didn't you even RTFA yourselves?
2) "I have an aversion to shopping in general, and large-format retail in particular. While I think I have a strong sense of direction most of the time, put me inside of a big box store with its scores of aisles and the sometimes impenetrable logic of its layout, and I get turned around and frustrated right quick. I tend to avoid this kind of shopping, opting instead for the convenience of online purchases or smaller bricks-and-mortar stores that Iâ(TM)m familiar with or that offer a more curated experience." OK, we know you're a condescending douche, got it. We understand that you don't go to these sorts of places, probably because you're tragically hip. Editors at Xconomy: asleep at the switch? Maybe cull out this sort of patronizing crap from reviews?
"During the 12-month Rialto experiment, use-of-force by officers wearing cameras fell by 59% and reports against officers dropped by 87% against the previous year's figures"
From that, you determine that the title of the article should be that it "reduces police use of force"?
Clearly, the MAIN result is that it reduces BS claims of "police brutality" more than anything.
I'd be curious to understand why the submitter and editor so-titled the article.