71–77 of 77 posts
Obviously false, and now that the author knows it > UPDATE: ... much of the $14b did not go to Alexandr why not change the title as well?
The premise (and headline) isn't that $14 billion went to the one guy; it's that the $14 billion was spent by Meta. It's "Meta spent $14B to...", not "A single guy got paid $14B to..."
It's an interesting take for a guy who's company labels data. Is it a hot dog? Yes, yes it is. 14 BILLIES!
At least they could pivot Hotdog or Not into a dick-pic classifier, which was less trivial when that show was airing. $14 billion for a glorified mechanical turk platform is bananas. Between this, the $6 billion Jonny Ive acquisition, and a ChatGPT wrapper for doctors called Abridge having a $5 billion valuation, this AI fraud bubble is making pets.com look like a reasonable investment.
Can Altman inspire him? Somehow I doubt it, the guy has never built a product in his life. Unclear if he's even a good investor... nobody reads the Altman essays, its PG that built the castle, Altman somehow managed to get the ear of the King.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dude you went to Columbia, you probably dont think people that went to state schools are even human. Rest of the article was good
> you probably dont think people that went to state schools are even human on the contrary. I have been quite vocal about why I felt my education was lacking and the respect I have for those who have gone for nontraditional paths
Obviously false, and now that the author knows it > UPDATE: ... much of the $14b did not go to Alexandr why not change the title as well?
Obviously false, and now that the author knows it > UPDATE: ... much of the $14b did not go to Alexandr why not change the title as well?
I debated changing the title but as the commenters below mention the title is still accurate, as is the rest of the article. Meta was under no obligation to pay that much. Alexandr could have requested that Meta spend $14b on and the title would still be correct. The only part of the article that I think needs some reworking is an implication in a footnote about how these kinds of deals screw over employees. They do,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry for the late reply. I was being somewhat sarcastic, or maybe not. During the "dot com" era, investors were throwing money at anybody willing to take it, and a start-up was questioned about whether it was maintaining a sufficient "burn rate." In hindsight, it was a speculative bubble. The company that I work for survived that era by not doing those things.
I guess, but if you invested $1 million into 100 companies in 2000 and one of them was Amazon (and other 99 went to zero) your investments combined would have had an annual growth of 24% over the past 25 years.
If the idea is just look at what worked 25 years ago, the 2000 investor would probably have followed a different approach.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess, but if you invested $1 million into 100 companies in 2000 and one of them was Amazon (and other 99 went to zero) your investments combined would have had an annual growth of 24% over the past 25 years.
Someone in 2000 would not have done your proposed strategy unless they could name 100 .com like tech companies from 1975 that, if you had invested $1 million dollars in, would have returned 24% over the previous 25 years. If the idea is just look at what worked 25 years ago, the 2000 investor would probably have followed a different approach.