151–160 of 192 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, not at all. You're taxed on equity at fair market value when it vests. It's only after that when you get taxed at a lower rate on the capital gains.
This seems to say the opposite. If your employer grants you a statutory stock option, you generally don't include any amount in your gross income when you receive or exercise the option https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc427
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Shocking? Taxed on payout is a discount versus ordinary stiffs who get taxed every year. A percentage taken from the increase of an amount every year, is more than the same percentage taken at the end; as the former foregoes the opportunity to earn a return on the amount taxed earlier. This is quite significant over longer periods. (I learned that from one of Warren Buffet's annual letters - I think he was explaining…
> A percentage taken from the increase of an amount every year, is more than the same percentage taken at the end It sounds like you're describing a hypothetical tax on unrealized gains? Do you have a link to the Buffet letter?
This may assume that there is more alpha in the shares than other investments you have access to, which is perhaps less true today. But it should probably be your position if you're CEO of the company...
All the Buffett letters are online, but I don't remember what year it was. If I get time I may find it and report back.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, not at all. You're taxed on equity at fair market value when it vests. It's only after that when you get taxed at a lower rate on the capital gains.
This seems to say the opposite. If your employer grants you a statutory stock option, you generally don't include any amount in your gross income when you receive or exercise the option https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc427
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, not at all. You're taxed on equity at fair market value when it vests. It's only after that when you get taxed at a lower rate on the capital gains.
[flagged]
Second, even if they were options, they definitely vest, otherwise Pichai would never gain control to be able to use them as collateral for a loan.
What you might be thinking is that they never get exercised, which is when the person uses the option to actually buy the share. But even that isn’t as straightforward as you seem to be making it out to be. The money to actually pay the interest on those loans and that is usually done by selling stock acquired this way. And then that income is almost certainly subject to AMT as well as other special taxes in California.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe it was the right decision at the time to lay them off? I think that's why he got the bonus, actually! I'm sure the layoff was difficult for him as well: he certainly lost a lot of goodwill with his workforce and I'm sure the internal politics were tricky for anyone involved. No one is getting "punished" - there was no promise of ten years of employment from Google. Like when an employee leaves, you wouldn't say…
> Maybe it was the right decision at the time to lay them off? It probably was the right decision to lay everyone off. What was not the right decision, and this should have been obvious, was hiring 10+k more employees than you actually need because you assume that this free money will last forever. He was almost certainly aware and signed off on this mass hiring. Other companies didn't make this mistake; Tim Cook did…
And after all this, people will think twice whether BigCo is stable. Just as well! If you want stability, look into small family-run companies.
absolutely no one is smart or productive enough to justify $692m in pay. they could hire thousands of engineers for that money.
Giving him 700m in stock to keep him around is worth it for both the investors and employees.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Maybe it was the right decision at the time to lay them off? It probably was the right decision to lay everyone off. What was not the right decision, and this should have been obvious, was hiring 10+k more employees than you actually need because you assume that this free money will last forever. He was almost certainly aware and signed off on this mass hiring. Other companies didn't make this mistake; Tim Cook did…
> they know people are joining BigCo because they think it's going to be relatively stable And after all this, people will think twice whether BigCo is stable. Just as well! If you want stability, look into small family-run companies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No offense to Kagi, but they don’t rank in the top 6. They are behind even Baidu, which I had forgotten exists. I think they have good mind-share among power users, but probably not in the general population.
But the question is whether or not Kagi is a competitor — not just in regards to the market share it currently holds, but what it could come to hold. Let's see where it is next year.
The question is who’s a competitor now, right? It’s not “Who will be a competitor in n years”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. Proprietary Data (Youtube, docs, gmail, cloud logs, waymo, website analytics, ads, search, the list is huge) 2. Commercial Datacenters (theyre ahead at least) 3. Chip production (Google is manufactoring proprietary chips) 4. Consumer OS (Chrome, Andriod) 5. Consumer Hardware (Pixel) Basically google has access to data that OpenAI will never have access to, can lower costs below what OpenAI can, and is already a le…
You can't train LLMs on proprietary data, at least not if you want to make that LLM as accessible as Gemini. Otherwise random people can ask it your home address. So it matters less than one would think. Also, ChatGPT can do 'internet search' as a tool already, so it already has access to say Google maps POI database of SMBs. And ChatGPT also gets a lot of proprietary data of its own as well. People use it as a Googl…
If this is your only criteria I think you have a misunderstanding of what proprietary data is and ways companies can mitigate the situation in the inference stage.