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.
hey, I had a GE made in Mexico about a decade ago - complete junk. I just gave away a Bosch too - also junk. Before the GE was Whirlpool junk. Replaced the Bosch with a Maytag, a model with a grinder, and it's the first dishwasher I've bought that I haven't hated in two decades. Not sure where it's made.
As far as immigrations goes, that's just bullshit. We don't have a shortage of people that are willing to do the work, we have a shortage of people that can afford to work for the wages that companies are willing to pay. Big difference, immigration just screws up the market forces that would correct the imbalance
Well, everyone wants higher pay. But supply and demand always win in the end. The big software companies already have development centers in China, India, Canada, and many other places. They can already hire cheap developers - cheaper than you pay US immigrants! It's not about driving down wages, when you can hire someone for $20k easily enough today if you just want basic competence. Companies want to pay these talented developers more, and bring them to the US because this is where top talent comes. What labor pool do you imagine you're protecting? The work can in theory be done anywhere, and we in the US benefit greatly from being the concentration of top talent.
I was surprised by the
I guess it looks cool, though (hard to argue with the company's success).
I'm willing to bet the NSA has prior art on this.
You think the Lizard Squad is teenagers? The conspiracy theorists have been warning us that the NSA is run by the NWO and Lizard People for decades.
If you live in a hydro state, electricity is even cheaper (I think 6 or 7 cpkwh).
With shopping and 6 month contracts (instead of 3 year), you can get 8.3 cpkwh right now.
Short contracts are cheap,
1-2 year are more expensive.
And 3 year are less expensive but more expensive than short term contracts.
To be honest, going to LED's is a much better payoff than solar power cells right now and will probably be for several more years. They all pay for themselves within 6 months. But you have to stick with the 3100k bulbs otherwise you get wierd shades of pink and orange or intense blue white (which will keep you up at night).
Because the price is set by the last 1%.
If we can get 99% of our oil out of the ground for $40 per barrel and 1% of our oil out of the ground for $100 per barrel- then every barrel sells is if it cost $100 per barrel to get out of the ground.
And that's just in the united states. Europe also has a similar size fleet of electric vehicles.
And in Europe, for instance, while total petroleum consumption averaged over 15.3 million barrels per day in 2009, it was under 14.3 million in 2013, and has dropped further since.
We get 19 gallons of gasoline per barrel so that's so 465,000 fewer gallons of oil here (and another 465,000 fewer gallons of oil in europe) translates to 48,000 barrels a day of oil that used to be needed that isn't needed any more.
Totally- not at all. But part of the reason for lower demand? Sure.
I'm sure there are many components to the lower demand and the higher supply.
Three are roughly 600,000 to 700,000 hybrid electric cars (so about 325,000 gallons a day of gasoline not used) and about 70,000 purely electric cars (so about 140,000 gallons a day of gasoline not used). So purely electric and electric/hybrid cars have reduced demand for gasoline by roughly 465,000 gallons of gasoline per day.
What is actual electricity in Hawaii now? I was told 27 cents by a Hawaiian on another discussion board-- it sounded really high but I figured imported coal/oil or something was a factor.
I can't believe populist sentiment among programmers. This job can be done anywhere. You want to compete with immigrants, who have your same cost of living!
But that misses the most fundament point in all these "they turk or jurbs" arguments. You can't keep the business here by keeping immigrants out. If you want the US to be a center for the good programming jobs, then you must be pro-immigrant, because those jobs will go wherever it's easiest for programmers to legally assemble (it's not like you easily can spot the top 5% - you hire as many "good" programmers as you can, then observe their actual performance). If you want just the shit jobs to stay here, and all the best jobs to be elsewhere, then by all means get your immigrant hatred on!
This is seriously one of the first things anyone in security would have thought up
Malicious exit nodes do not per se compromise TOR, though they are in a position to take advantage of some potential exploits (also, exit nodes are irrelevant to
TFA seems to be about taking over more than half of all TOR nodes, which can hardly be done in secret, and really makes 0-days in the TOR bundle visible.
Far more worrying, especially for the conspiracy theorist, is the never-ending stream of vulnerabilities in