|
lol Solkanar, that's a pretty bizarre argument to be making - that bumfuck nowhere areas tend to be better to GLBT people
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 18:24 |
|
|
redscare posted:Speaking of startups and compliance failures, how about Zenefits! lol the same publication just named the ex-CEO its executive of the year in December lmbo
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
The Bay Area's extremely livable though. There's a reason why places like Austin are becoming hubs as well. Who wants to live in the flyover states?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
tbf, start-ups of the sorta we're talking about would probably sneer at the notion of MBAs
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
you get the worst of both worlds when you have MBAs basically cargo-cult start-ups. then there are VC groups that focus on having MBAs clone successful ventures. Rocket Internet is notorious for this.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
i've never heard of them. looking at their website, it's just another e-commerce retail site?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
Probably because it's the equivalent of the Big Bang theory
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
lol at people defending big bang theory *shouts strings of geek words*
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
Speaking of Twitter, reminder that they've actually announced that their user base is shrinking
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
in terms of actually interesting questions, i'm pretty keen to see whether YouTube Red succeeds or not. for the uninitiated, there's been a bit of bubble when it comes to YouTube content creation with Google subsidizing the big YouTube stars; ad rates for YT videos have been nose-diving.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
PewDiePie is gating some of his videos now - $3 a video. Pretty curious whether teens are going to pay
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
nah the YouTube org is structured somewhat differently from Google. there is a lot of focus on developing content creators. that's why you have droves of "partnerships managers" who basically wrangle the bigger stars
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Yeah, and that's been true for most of the history of post-merger YouTube, but they haven't succeeded yet. Not sure posting a simple history of YT says anything. Hey, I'm not sure whether they'll succeed in selling content. All I'm saying is that they're not structured like the rest of Google like you suggested.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
Hmm, it very well could be a monetizing attempt that fails. Still will be interesting given how high profile PDP is and the extent of the effort at creating paid only video content (using FoD).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
arguably the biggest online star (defo YT's biggest). took in 12 million last year
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
the whiteness of the entire tech industry (with a substantial Asian minority) really comes thru when you spend time in the Bay Area. remember being out for drinks one night in SF with ex-classmates and someone joking about blacks in the industry.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
well, given the focus is on unicorns, uber etc. think you can treat tech industry as shorthand for that side of things. no one gives a poo poo about enterprise IT or the more sedate b2b outfits.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
Gail Wynand posted:I know we're supposed to move on from locationchat, but even if you restrict yourself to democrat-run states there are plenty of viable lower cost tech hubs - most of which are already getting investment and are not cultural Siberias. Chicago, Boston, Minneapolis, Vegas, Philly, Denver... Boston isn't cheap these days
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
Gail Wynand posted:Neither is Denver. Still not nearly as expensive as SF. I think Seattle's another hub. It never went bubble mode for some reason.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
I haven't been there a year but it still seemed pretty cheap to me. 2.5 grand for a 1BR downtown.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
I'm comparing it with the other major hubs like SF and NYC.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2016 22:25
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:In the dot-com era I very briefly (6 months) worked for an investment bank, on the infrastructure side. The actual movers and shakers were quite blunt about how little they cared what happened to a stock after they brought it public. Their job was to make $$$$ for the investment bank and coincidentally some of the founders at the IPO, to give the company a couple of Buy ratings, and then to cut the company loose. Some investors* buy invest pre-IPO and then dump most, if not all, of the shares at the IPO; they don't think the stock is a long-term win, they just want to make the quick profit. it's a bit more complex than that (was on the buy side myself). there's a fair bit of relationship management involved with institutional clients and the company being IPOed so it's not just IPO and forget. i mean there's a reason why IPOs have been overwhelmingly underpriced
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
Jesus Christ at Theranosquote:In May 2013 Ian Gibbons, a senior biochemist employed at Theranos for more than eight years committed suicide after telling his wife that "Nothing is working [at the company]".[11][12]
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
Mmm, i guess if you want to talk really really cheap, Pittsburgh is cheap. I have an ex-classmate who works for the new Uber setup there. Wrangled Bay Area pay and is paying less than a grand for a 2BR. Anyway the context is tech hubs.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2016 08:53
|
|
|
Startup Promising Cash For Weddings Pivots To Crowdfunding Platform, Infuriates Couples http://consumerist.com/2016/02/17/startup-promising-cash-for-weddings-pivots-to-crowfunding-platform-infuriates-couples/ quote:The news went out around December: a startup in Seattle would give engaged couples loans for their weddings, and some couples receive $10,000 toward their wedding expenses with no obligation to pay it back… for as long as the couple stays together. Then it abruptly changed the entire business model when it launched.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
IndustrialApe posted:You pay quite a steep price for internet access and a load of useful information is behind paywalls or simply inaccessible to the average Joe. "Everything is free", but "Everything" always turns into a few specific things that the author feels strongly about and paying for access to the internet is never taken into account. Lol I'm going to need to see the receipts to the argument that Internet access is getting "gentrification".
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2016 10:49
|
|
|
That isn't gentrification. I don't see any displacement of poor people or poor people's needs especially given your premise that the roll-outs are taking place in existing high income areas.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2016 11:26
|
|
|
If anything, you could argue the bubble is subsidizing people's consumption of online goods/services. Without the spigot of investor money and regulatory arbitrage, products ranging from Amazon Prime deliveries to Tesla cars to Uber rides would presumably be more expensive. Of course, for a 1099 worker, the benefits of paying a "subsidized" 10 bucks a month for Netflix etc. are unlikely to outweigh the reduction in wages or benefits.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2016 13:21
|
|
|
Not even websites. Content that would saturate existing broadband bandwidth or caps is largely limited to HD videos and games.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
Nah, the speculative bubble leading up to '08 was much more dangerous i.e., systemic given the tangle of financial institutions involved. The tech bubble's been largely financed by institutional investors and the major tech players.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
Nah, you're unlikely to see stuff like the repo run or the breaking of the buck scaring the poo poo out of people. There's a reason why there's a bank scare going on in Europe right now.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
I can't wait for someone to write the tech culture-equivalent of American Psycho.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:Let's face it, anyone posting anti-99% memes on facebook and other social media are idiots who would only benefit from more socialism and better regulated capitalism, but they are so sure that they are on their way to being billionaires themselves that they don't want to concede any ground. I have a number of friends posting bullshit like this and it's God damned infuriating. lol if you think the 1% doesn't post stupid stuff on social media quote:In defense of Facebook’s efforts, Mr. Andreessen, who posts prolifically on Twitter, argued that Indians were being shortsighted with the ban. When other Twitter users compared Facebook’s efforts to a colonialist approach, Mr. Andreessen wrote, “Anti-colonialism has been economically catastrophic for the Indian people for decades. Why stop now?”
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
actually a lot of the major tech firms are opening engineering hubs in Asia (Singapore, India etc.) to cater to foreign-born devs that want to move home. i know pay in Singapore is actually pretty attractive given the cost of living and low taxes.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
Still doesn't make any sense. Engaging in an offshoring exercise during a crash to cut costs would be more of a negative signal to investors.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
yelp's public. you can look at their IR website for financials.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2016 14:54
|
|
|
Accepted the bid from Microsoft in 08.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
It's the same with finance/consulting campus recruiting. If you have 10,000 CVs, an easy first cut is throwing out the 9500 CVs not from a target school and working from there. Having done recruiting for finance analyst and then consulting associate roles, I've come to the conclusion that top firms make the hiring process onerous more for the signalling/prestige effect than necessarily just finding the "best" talent. I did some back-of-the-envelope calculations for recruitment expenses at my current firm and I'd estimate that it spends 6-figures on the interview process to convert each successful hire.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:It also just makes practical sense. If you're desirable enough as an employer to be competing for only the best potential hires, why bother sifting through a huge number of potential applicants when you can just recruit graduates who will definitely want the job from the "best" schools? There's nothing particularly bad about doing this, it's just that the effect it ultimately has on the rest of the labor pool is horrible. Two things: 1) CV screen - Is an average Harvard graduate really better than a top Pitt graduate? I come from a target school so I can't complain personally but I think the monoculture of backgrounds at a place like a Goldman or McKinsey or Google is a) incredibly boring and b) arguably impedes work (some interesting work on org. behavior) 2) Interview process - Most of these firms have a structured 4-5 round quant/fit interview process. You get a lot of resources (alum practice interviews, interview consultants, peer practice) at target schools that drill you that kids at normal-tier schools don't get access to. I've been on both ends (interviewer/interviewee) and my sense is that mastery of this process doesn't really say anything about how effective you are at the job. There's nothing wrong with having arbitrary recruitment hurdles to filter candidates. I'm just not sure if you actually end up with an hiring pool that's objectively "good".
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 18:24 |
|
|
Recruiting is actually a pretty exciting field ripe for disruption. There're a bunch of start-ups applying data mining and analytic techniques on topics ranging from candidate scoring to talent management. And firms are willing to pay given the amount of money they throw at recruitment e.g., you're paying 40-50 grand to a head-hunter for a successful conversion etc.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2016 14:51
|
|