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.
To maintain and support an entire OS takes a lot of work. We aren't talking about just development here, but checking to make sure things run properly and making the changes needed to ensure stuff is supporter. The point I would start looking at rolling your own distribution and supporting it is the day you decide to start selling your distribution.
For internal use, sure you might have to have a team to do internal work to modify certain sections in order to make the OS work for you, but they are relatively minor compared to ensuring an entire distribution works as needed. Let another company do the heavy lifting and just have your company modify it and submit changes back through the system as desired. Feedback works as well.
To run an entire distribution and all the subsystems takes billions, look at IBM donating to Linux as a whole they give value back to the community rather than trying to extend and embrace for their own purposes. Redhat does the same and they do distribution and sales. Other companies are the same. I guess you can make the decision on your own but personally I suppose the time to switch is when you have support fees in excess of what it would cost to maintain an entire distribution. I'd assume someone around a thousand people focused on the project would be about right. A thousand people's salaries would buy a lot of support. A better idea might be to hire developers for the subsections of the OS that you need and have them work with the community.
Yes and from what I remember of the steam box that is one of the features. You are supposed to be able to have your massive gaming machine in one part of the house but be able to play on any television throughout the house. The big machine handles the heavy lifting and transmits the data to wherever you want to play at. Since this is the designed function there isn't even an issue of plugging and unplugging wires etc to wherever you are at.
I haven't read the literature in a while, but that was my understanding of how it was supposed to work. Granted that is pre-release information before they got the specs set for the steambox and the functionality may have been removed.
Isn't this supposed to be what steam big picture is for. Playing games on your television in another room from you computer?
If the literature is correct, that would just make this ask slashdot just another slashavedisment .
In my opinion we need to start holding politicians accountable for their actions. Currently it seems the legalization of bribes and free speech of corporations while the rest of the country has their right to speak publicly only in free speech zones and the removal of their assets without any proof of wrongdoing just doesn't sit well with me.
I don't see what the big deal is. How about, put a security guard on the front door, and back door, and lock the door. This isn't that big of a problem. Everywhere else in America, rich people get by with either a doorman, a gate, or both.
Not rocket science.
Sure I suppose it's good enough for a single user, but I think it'll be a bit more expensive to add these in rather than run a set of fiber cables down the road.
That's an interesting take. You found Miami to be uber conservative?
Yes, the keys are a little different. The weather is more mild. The daily highs are similiar, but it's almost constant sea breeze. The daily high of 90 in the summer is not the same sticky hot variety you get inland.