Bets for price at completion:
1) 9 billion
2) 13 billion
3) Spend 8 billion before giving up on the whole thing.
4) Hire the Chinese who will do it for 2.2 billion with Chinese workers, and still have plenty left over for bribes!
But the devices are often free!
The way the phones are actually paid for is evil - Stupidly high monthly bills from AT&T.
The phone and financing of the phone should not be linked in any way to a monthly connection/carrier fee.
What happens when Apple eventually buys back all it's own shares? The only reason this stock rises is due to 100's of billions in buy backs.
2012 26,470 million shares outstanding
2024 15,408 million shares outstanding
That is a massive drop. Considering that a huge chunk of Apple's shares are locked up with buy and hold firms, the float is artificially constrained.
If they keep up the pace of buy backs, in 10-15 years they really will take themselves private.
It is delusional to think you can actually lock down these records. One insider gets a nice payment, and good security goes out the window.
How do I opt out of electronic records? On a long enough time scale, they will be hacked.
I'll pay a handling fee for paper records.
Why on earth are employers paying for Americans? Hire someone from the Philippines, India, South America...
Totally agree. Who cares what language you use?
Unless we are hiring for C++, I've never worked for an employer who hired based on language. If you code mostly C#, we ask you C# questions. If you code mostly in Java, we ask you Java questions. If you've never looked at Python and we are using Python, smart programmers will be just fine. Total non-issue.
It would be really weird to hire someone who doesn't have a firm grasp on pointers... Even if we aren't using C/C++. That would be like hiring someone who doesn't understand the very basics of how a computer works.
Related note: Students should be required to demonstrate mastery of a functional programming language to graduate.
That is what I was thinking. It does feel like a Theranos.
If a company has a product, and it isn't working because of a memory leak. Give them time. That is solvable. No need (in my opinion) to have to disclose much.
If a company has a product that depends on "Secret Sauce", and the "Secret Sauce" isn't working because there is a fundamental problem, not being 100% honest with investors is criminal.
There is a big gap between: "We have the "Secret Sauce", and it works!" and "We think we can invent a "Secret Sauce" that no one else on earth has figured out!"
Legal Tech Unicorn EvenUp Relied Heavily on Fraud.
That's better!
Surprised the number isn't higher. Just ask the handful of strong developers in any team - Who causes the team more work just by being here? I doubt it is only 9%. (I'm talking about on average. At Goldman it should less. At "APP company for dentists" or some place like JLL, higher.)
Get over it. Procedures and data needs to be published. That's kinda what real scientists do. Everyone in the field understands what it means to have a sample size of 1.
And yes. This chick deserves the bad ass of the year award. How do you get more awesome than that?
New headlights are often too bright. Plus, some car direct extreme amounts of light at the ground. If the car hits a bump, you get a flash worse than brights.
Furthermore, adaptive headlights should dim when they spot a pedestrian. At night, if you are walking and someone shines a super bright light in your face, you can't see anything at all. Same with cyclists. It isn't safe if you can't see the ground 5 feet in front of you due to some a**hole's high-beams.
If the NSA hacks China, is the NSA at fault or is it China's fault for failing to keep them out? China has laws that make this a criminal act, and the US government has no qualms breaking those laws.
We hack China. China hacks us. This is the norm.
Our job is to keep them out. If we are too stupid to keep them out, we get what we deserve.
If we still had astrodomes ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ), we wouldn't have to worry so much about flying blind!
C'mon Boeing! What were you thinking when you go rid of these?
(before you rip me. I'm joking.)
Computers don't actually think. You just think they think. (We think.)
