181–190 of 192 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The cloud business is also doing quite well. Waymo is generating revenue now as well. So not just ads.
So how much is the American household spending on Waymo, in average? It's totally insignificant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google has succeeded in enshittifying their search in a way that the vast majority of users (not customers -- those are the advertisers) have not noticed.
If the users aren’t bothered by the “enshittification”, does that reflect poorly on the CEO? The CEO is supposed to make money, and maybe has personal aspirations to improve the world. They’re not making art.
Also, whether it’s ChatGPT or something else, five years is really not that long. Time will tell, but does it really seem like decreasing quality in the name of profits is such a good long-term strategy?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well I hope people won't perceive this (nonexistent) stability in the future. I'm not trying to "absolve" Google, nor do I think they're guilty. They used their reputation to hire people. It turns out that needs to be updated. Perhaps in the future they will do things to improve their reputation again? Who knows...
It just feels a little victim-blamey. Google manipulated thousands of people, and they got screwed in the process. Should they have known that big corporations are evil? Maybe, but I'm not going to blame someone who was misled by dishonest people. If you're agreeing that they misled people by using their reputation in a way that's dishonest, how are they "not guilty"?
To give a somewhat contorted example: If people believe you give 1 Bitcoin to anyone who can recite the whole Beowulf, they will perhaps spend a lot of time learning Beowulf, forgoing other things. Then they find out you in fact have not promised them that and that you have no such obligation. I don't think you've misled them! Do they have a right to be angry with you? Or should they have checked with you what the precise conditions were before upending their life?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It just feels a little victim-blamey. Google manipulated thousands of people, and they got screwed in the process. Should they have known that big corporations are evil? Maybe, but I'm not going to blame someone who was misled by dishonest people. If you're agreeing that they misled people by using their reputation in a way that's dishonest, how are they "not guilty"?
I agree Google's reputation misled people. But importantly, I don't think Google can be held accountable for their reputation and for what other people believed. To give a somewhat contorted example: If people believe you give 1 Bitcoin to anyone who can recite the whole Beowulf, they will perhaps spend a lot of time learning Beowulf, forgoing other things. Then they find out you in fact have not promised them that a…
Google knew that people would join based on a perception of stability. Did they hire 10,000 people knowing that they would fire them six months later? If so, they are jerks. If not, then they are so categorically idiotic as to think that they will just have free money for forever and interest rates would never ever go up. In either situation they are bad.
Google should fire Sundar and make Denis CEO
I don't think Demis wants to be CEO of all of Google. He wants to focus on DeepMind and AI. He has a life goal of inventing AGI and using that to solve the world's biggest problems. Leading Google gets him further not closer. He doesn't give a shit about ads and ads is Google's biggest money maker.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The fact that labour cost is disconnected from the value it generates It's not disconnected from its value in the market, I don't think. I think the great scam is telling people that capitalist values are in any way attached to human values.
The problem is it's quite a bit more challenging to agree on prices for exchange denominated in human values. There is no common currency.
I just want people to stop pretending they're related.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I remember Pichai mainly for his "AI now first everything" in 2015, destroying Google search as a reliable channel to acquisit users somehow for free.
That may have been bad for users, but you can hardly claim it was bad for the company - not even in the long run. Ten years is like 40% of Google's lifetime, that is the long run! And if indeed he went all-in on AI in 20 15 , that seems to me like a damn near prophetic vision. Dislike AI by all means, but you can't say it's not the Current Big Thing or that Google is doing badly because of it. To see that coming so e…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That was the proper takeaway during Amazon.com’s preprofit stages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
A more sophisticated analysis would involve checking available capital vs run rate and whether or not there is a viable business underneath.
What next? Are you going to say look at where Apple was pre Jobs as evidence? So all they have to do is resurrect Jobs from the dead and let him take over Waymo?
There is a reason that “look at Amazon!” is meaningless