> He's the same guy who says we need to have more people.

He's not wrong.

The birthrate is plumenting.

https://data.worldbank.org/ind...

There's actually two DOJ cases. One is regarding Google's search offering, the second is regarding Google's adtech offering.

The article above is regarding the former. What you linked is regarding the latter.

It ain't cheatin', if you're just doing math.

She was raked over the coals recently for her salary, specifically how rapidly it increased while Firefox was losing market share:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

> In 2018 she received a total of $2,458,350 in compensation from Mozilla, which represents a 400% payrise since 2008.[17] On the same period, Firefox marketshare was down 85%. When asked about her salary she stated "I learned that my pay was about an 80% discount to market. Meaning that competitive roles elsewhere were paying about 5 times as much. That's too big a discount to ask people and their families to commit to."[citation needed]

> In 2020, after returning to the position of CEO, her salary had risen to over $3 million (in 2021, her salary rose again to over $5 million,[18] and again to nearly $7 million in 2022[19]). In August of the same year the Mozilla Corporation laid off approximately 250 employees due to shrinking revenues, after previously laying off roughly 70 in January (prior to the pandemic). Baker blamed this on the COVID-19 pandemic, despite revenue rising to record highs in 2019, and market share shrinking.[20]

I'm very pro-vax. I was double boosted & got the 2023 booster the day after it was available.

However, I really hate this false dichotomy that vaccines are either poison or they're perfect. Both sides are wrong. They're medicine. Medicine almost always comes with tradeoffs.

We need to stop painting questions about side effects, and things like the benefits for demographics as "anti-vaxx".

Let's stick with science. Science welcomes questions. That's how we learn.

The Publishers misplayed their hand. They wanted Big Tech to start to pay them just for indexing & showing links to their content.

If Big Tech Wants News, Shouldn’t They Pay for It?
https://www.yesmagazine.org/de...

California Bill Would Make Big Tech Pay Publishers for News
https://www.govtech.com/policy...

Google agrees to pay French publishers for news
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/21...

Canada Introduces Bill Requiring Online Giants to Share Revenues With Publishers
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/0...

So, of course, the obvious answer is stop linking to those sites.

The publishers aren't stupid, so I imagine they knew the value they were getting from all the traffic being driven to their site. I imagine they thought they could have their cake & eat too -- both the traffic & the fees.

This is such a bad idea.

To compensate, they restarted *five* coal power plants:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/r...

(Lignite is brown coal.)

Ironically, these coal plants will emit more radiation than the nuclear ones, as coal contains 1 to 10 ppm of uranium.

> President Joe Biden sought to assure customers of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank on Monday that their money was safe -- insured by the Deposit Insurance Fund

There's a fundamental misunderstanding here on what happened with SVB.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Fund insures up to $250k. There was never a question on if that money was safe. Everyone knew it was the entire time.

The question was what would to accounts & funds over $250k? Those *aren't* insured by the FDIC. A lot of companies had balances far in excess of $250k to pay bills & make payroll. Would *those* uninsured funds be protected?

The news on Friday was the FDIC said, yes, it would make sure those funds are covered too. (They also made clear it won't be covered via taxpayer dollars, but that's a different topic.)

What Biden is trying to make clear is that:

- If you were a bank *customer*, your money -- insured or not -- is fine
- If you were a bank *investor*, you lost your money

Technically, the idea originated in Superman III.

That's where the guys in Office Space lifted it from.

That's a weird statement to make here. With the exception of Twitter, all of these companies are profitable. Massively so.

Apple had 20.72B in profit. Google had 13.91B in profit.

Even Meta made a 4.39B in profit. Grant a lot more modest, but it's even greater than Amazon's 2.87B.

Ending up reading most of it in one weekend. I wouldn't say it's as good as The Martian, but it's up there.

That's incorrect.

I believe what you're referring to is the "High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation"[1] where Adobe, Apple Inc., Google, Intel, Intuit, Pixar, Lucasfilm and eBay were alleged to have a "no cold call" policy to recruit each other's employees:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Facebook specifically was not part of the arrangement:
https://www.reuters.com/articl...

I loved AOE but haven't had a Window machine in ages.

Is there a Mac version that's just as good?

> is that they promote an "all inclusive" environment where you're encouraged to be at work as much as possible.

I've been at Google 10+ years and haven't found that to be true.

Seriously, ssh -D is your friend:

My prior job required me to travel to China for a few weeks every 2-3 months & I found it invaluable. Fire it open on the command line, and set your browser to use that local port as a SOCKS proxy.

(Note, however, this will not help you deal with shitty bandwidth to sites outside china. On that front, you're pretty much just fucked until you leave China. Even "off hours" don't help that much.)