Tech Nightmares: Ghostline the flux

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Tech Nightmares: Ghostline the flux

How many quarters after Q1 2016 till Marissa Mayer is unemployed?
	1 or fewer
	2
	4
	Her job is guaranteed; what are you even talking about?

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

Shifty Pony posted:

For example a VC might invest $100M for 10% of a company, which makes the company worth $1B. That's the number the press talks about. What they don't talk about (because it is done via confidential contracts) is that the 10% is only true if the company keeps going up Up UP! If that doesn't happen the investor gets to lay claim to more shares at a reduced price so that their original investment is made whole. So if the company IPOs at a valuation of $750M (making the initial investment worth $75M) the VC might be able to buy an additional 10% of the company for $50M... making their total ownership 20% at $150M and they didn't lose a penny. Employees on the other hand who bought shares at a time when they thought and were being told by the founders that the company was worth a billion dollars are screwed - this is kind of what happened to Square employees.

oddly enough silicon valley of all shows showed me that most start-up valuations are complete bullshit and filled with fun little clauses like the one you detailed there.

edit: i also genuinely like uber and think its better than taxis because taxis in the dmv region are utter garbage. it took them until 2013 to accept credit cards. no really.

so i hope uber figures out a way to stick around, from a user experience its miles better than a taxi. airbnb i find creepy and weird because i think staying in someone stranger's house without them there (or even weirder: with them there) is super imposing and impolite. like you're a house guest but not really because you're paying?

axeil fucked around with this message at 06:00 on Feb 9, 2016

# ¿ Feb 9, 2016 05:56

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 4, 2024 07:17

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

Arsenic Lupin posted:

Everybody agrees about that. What we really need is a regulatory system that allows new taxi businesses to start up, instead of providing a state-imposed monopoly on the number of people who can get permits to drive taxis. However, Uber is bypassing not only the medallion system, but also standard rules about insurance, liability, training, security checks .... all under the claim that it's just private citizens moonlighting.

virginia did...something that allowed uber to operate in the state legally but i have no idea if it was an actual regulatory regime or just "okay you can operate here and not follow any laws"

i think they were already righteous in DC and maryland.

# ¿ Feb 9, 2016 06:20

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

Google buying Twitter is the most sensible final path for Twitter. They've wanted to break into social media for a long time and Google+ is a joke that no one uses. They get a (fairly) popular platform and Twitter can stop panicking about how to monetize.

Of course it'll only make people millions of dollars instead of billions so instead they're gonna do a bunch of dumb stuff and destroy the platform.

# ¿ Feb 12, 2016 22:15

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

so who do we all hate more now, finance or tech?

# ¿ Feb 23, 2016 05:05

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

TACD posted:

I used to work in an Apple store in the Bay Area and a good portion of the Genius team ended up leaving for Palantir. I didn't know the company was doing badly, hope those guys are alright.

they named themselves after the cursed seeing stones from lord of the rings. if that isnt a bad sign i dunno what is.

# ¿ Feb 25, 2016 20:26

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

Jumpingmanjim posted:

http://www.streetinsider.com/Corporate+News/Valeants+(VRX)+Howard+Schiller+Issues+Statement/11436038.html

holy poo poo.

"guys the actual forms we are legally required to file are lying, don't listen to them, everything's fine i did nothing wrong"

# ¿ Mar 21, 2016 16:58

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

Jumpingmanjim posted:

What's wrong with accenture?

Serious trouble retaining talent, falling status (seen as third-rate by a lot of people). The number of people I've met who are former Accenture people who got out because they saw the ship sinking is immense.

Don't they also have a completely messed up partnership structure where you're forced to retire but don't have to sell your shares thus forcing new partners to buy at over-inflated rates? Or are they the consulting company that's publicly owned...which is another terrible idea.

# ¿ Mar 29, 2016 16:57

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

Paradoxish posted:

If it even occurs to you that there might be more than one way to write fizzbuzz or, hell, if any solution at all occurs to you in a minute or less then fizzbuzz and that whole class of problems are not for you. They're screening questions designed to quickly rule out candidates for development jobs who literally cannot program. It's pretty much "did you completely lie about your qualifications y/n?"

I mean poo poo, even if you come from a math background and can't code for poo poo you can figure out it's all just modular arithmetic and work your way back from there.

This is why we hire people who are mathematicians typically as you can teach a mathematician to code as code is just applying math concepts. You can have coders who don't understand why/how something works, but it's basically impossible to graduate with a degree in math and not understand why/how logic gates or loops or recursion works.

# ¿ Mar 30, 2016 15:49

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

shrike82 posted:

Back in my days as a dev, the best technical interview I had involved a 6-hour remote coding assignment on a toy problem and a 2-day on site coding project of an actual business problem abstracted. This was on top of the standard fit and quant interviews.

I think most firms don't have that luxury and it only worked due to the attractiveness of the role.

Even so, after joining the firm and being on the recruiting end, the problem with the setup was that it was extremely difficult to make successful offers. Turnover was extremely low fortunately.

Hiring is a problem all over the place it seems. Here's a horror story of when I was in government and we were trying to hire an economist. The person who was screening the applicants had no idea what quantitative modeling was and kept throwing us people without ph.ds in economics who had no idea what a regression even was. They then got pissed we rejected all their candidates.

And then when we finally got some ph.d people we'd interview them and they wouldn't get offered for another month and the HR people were confused why they all declined (it's because a bunch of financial shops were able to interview and offer them within a week instead of 2+ months plus they got paid about 50% more).

The one thing the government needs is a complete overhaul of its hiring practices for anyone above entry-level. It's an absolute joke and the main reason they can't get any talent in the door.

# ¿ Mar 30, 2016 16:18

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

feedmegin posted:

This is literally whats expected yes, congrats you are better than a ton of job applicants.

What the hell do job applicants say then? I've never given a coding exercise in an interview as I feel it's pointless as my job focuses on "do you understand why a program works?" more than "can you write super awesome code that is fast?" So long as you don't write an infinite loop and crash the server I don't care what your code does so long as I can read it.

And being able to read it is very, very important. I've spent the better part of a week doing debug work on someone else's code that looked like it was birthed by a demon. Ran great, but was almost impossible to debug...which is why there was a problem. Any time something upstream or downstream changed the behemoth would throw a fit and bomb out. If nothing changed it was great, but how often is that the case?

# ¿ Mar 30, 2016 20:14

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

Claverjoe posted:

No loving way. How do people finish a 4 year degree without thinking in terms of modulus?

I'm also totally not a programmer dude.

Because it was SAS and all written in macro nested in macro nested in macro code. You had to turn on all the macro log printing options to figure out what was getting passed, which would make the simple .txt log files measure in the hundreds of megabytes.

Oh and he didn't code anything except the final output to go to permanent tables so good luck figuring out which of the ~1,000 intermediate tables was hosed.

It was not a fun week. :gonk:

feedmegin posted:

They give you a blank look and panic.

How the hell are they getting to the interview stage then? This isn't a hard problem, you can pass it by just doing some vague description using modular arithmetic. This seems insane :psyduck:

axeil fucked around with this message at 20:20 on Mar 30, 2016

# ¿ Mar 30, 2016 20:18

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

edit: removed as it's off topic.

here's the BFC interview thread, maybe we can talk about it there: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3553582

axeil fucked around with this message at 20:37 on Mar 30, 2016

# ¿ Mar 30, 2016 20:33

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

1337JiveTurkey posted:

If there's not an epidemic of people attacking and destroying delivery trucks right now, there shouldn't be a problem when the trucks themselves are capable of reporting the crime and providing evidence.

and yet when industrialization started workers who were losing their jobs to machines would intentionally sabotage them. what's to stop ups/fedex/usps drivers giving these robots some "help" when they see these things while they're driving around?

# ¿ Apr 7, 2016 15:08

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

Mr Jaunts posted:

What does that even mean, 'listen to what it wants'? Is it more singularity-type, "we must obey our coming robot overlords" kinda nonsense?

Well I mean, robots would probably be better leaders than the ones we currently have but I'm not sure that's what that book is going for.

# ¿ Apr 7, 2016 21:35

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

Chokes McGee posted:

We already had a referendum on that in 2012, Obama won

A Good Joke.

# ¿ Apr 8, 2016 03:39

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

Arsenic Lupin posted:

Uber is going to fight to (somebody's) death to keep from classifying drivers as employees, because if they do, their "disruptive" buisiness model collapses.

If they can run out the clock on that until we have autonomous self-driving cars they'll have won. The drivers are merely a transitional step, like how Netflix's ultimate goal was streaming but had to do DVD by mail for its first few years of existence as the technology wasn't ready yet.

# ¿ Apr 28, 2016 15:51

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

lancemantis posted:

that reminds me, ban undergraduate business programs from places of university education

Nah I think we should keep the only area of schools that actually are capable of getting people employed after graduation.

# ¿ May 27, 2016 17:00

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

Absurd Alhazred posted:

More cheap medical device failure news: Fitbit heart-rate monitors highly inaccurate.

I don't see the issue here. No one is using a fitbit for truly medically accurate info. If my heart rate is at 140 or 160 it's not a massive difference, it's just to get a ballpark estimate.

I'd also dispute their findings as I find mine pretty much lines up when I do a manual measurement.

# ¿ May 27, 2016 17:13

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

Welcome to Uber Safe Rides where a driver can beat you nearly to death and Uber will refuse to release information to the police!

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/01/man-alleges-his-uber-driver-refused-to-take-him-home-then-beat-him-up/

ArsTechnica posted:

Man claims Uber driver �left him in a pool of blood� after refusing trip
"Driver stomped� Plaintiff in the face and head while he was already unconscious."

A New Jersey man sued Uber on Thursday for negligence, fraud, and assault, among other accusations. In the lawsuit, Joseph Fusco claimed that he was "nearly beaten to death� after his driver refused to drive him from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to his home in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, about nine miles away.

Uber has faced legal battles previously over alleged incidents of violence perpetrated by drivers against passengers.

According to the 34-page civil complaint, on the evening of December 22, 2016, Fusco was attending a private party at a Philadelphia sports bar with his colleagues from Allied Universal and other public safety officials from the University of Pennsylvania.

By 11:00pm, Fusco decided to go home and called for an Uber but apparently did not put in his destination immediately. After the driver asked where he was going, Fusco replied: �Jersey.� When the driver responded: �I am not driving to New Jersey,� Fusco repeated his request a second time.

As Fusco alleged:

The Uber Driver then opened the door, exited the vehicle and walked around the back of the car. The Uber Driver then opened the front passenger door and dragged Plaintiff out of the front seat by his coat collar. The Uber Driver severely beat Plaintiff and left him in a pool of blood on the pavement in the freezing cold. The Uber Driver stomped and kicked Plaintiff in the face and head while he was already unconscious, which upon information and belief, is captured on surveillance video.

Fusco was eventually found unconscious by two bystanders, who called 911 and had him taken to a nearby hospital.

The complaint alleges that Uber has refused to provide authorities with relevant information of the driver as part of the investigation into this case. The lawsuit also claims that Uber makes a �deceitful pledge to rider safety� by not adequately conducting background checks on its drivers and by not fully cooperating with law enforcement.

Uber spokeswoman Sophie Schmidt told Ars that the company would not �comment on active litigation.� However, she did confirm that the rider reported the incident to the company on December 23 and added that the driver was �immediately removed.�

Schmidt also noted that the company had been in �ongoing contact with law enforcement since they reached out last month and are fully supporting their investigation,� but did not elaborate further.

Fusco�s attorney, Matthew Luber, did not immediately respond to Ars� request for comment.

# ¿ Jan 6, 2017 15:42

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

Solkanar512 posted:

How in the gently caress do you "refuse to provide authorities with relevant information of the driver as part of the investigation into this case"? I'm not a legal expert here, but wouldn't police just get a judge to sign off on a warrant and then use that legal authority to get the information? What the hell is going on here?

I think it's like this:

cops: hey one of your drivers beat someone up, can you please provide us info voluntarily to help us solve this horrible crime like basically any other non-involved human being/organization would?
uber: :smug:

get a warrant OR oh he was an "independent contractor" so we don't have to give you poo poo. ask his "company" for it.
cops: okay go gently caress yourself. we will spend extra time and money to get your warrant, rear end in a top hat since you are not cooperating.
victim: :smith:

# ¿ Jan 6, 2017 19:02

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

Arsenic Lupin posted:

Tellingly, earlier this month, Bloomberg reported that JP Morgan and Deutsche Bank turned down the �opportunity� to sell Uber shares to high-net-worth individuals. The reason? The taxi ride company provided 290 pages of verbiage, but would not provide its net income or even annual revenues.

jesus christ. that is a giant blaring klaxon that something is deeply wrong there. if you're looking for investors and are unwilling to disclose financials it means your financials are utter dogshit. there is no reason to hide them otherwise even if your company is run by randian edgelords.

oh also i found this article really interesting on company strategy. seems like everyone these days takes the amazon route:

https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/05/12/strategy-letter-i-ben-and-jerrys-vs-amazon/

Joel On Software posted:

Strategy Letter I: Ben and Jerry�s vs. Amazon

May 12, 2000

Building a company? You�ve got one very important decision to make, because it affects everything else you do. No matter what else you do, you absolutely must figure out which camp you�re in, and gear everything you do accordingly, or you�re going to have a disaster on your hands.

The decision? Whether to grow slowly, organically, and profitably, or whether to have a big bang with very fast growth and lots of capital.

The organic model is to start small, with limited goals, and slowly build a business over a long period of time. I�m going to call this the Ben and Jerry�s model, because Ben and Jerry�s fits this model pretty well.

The other model, popularly called �Get Big Fast� (a.k.a. �Land Grab�), requires you to raise a lot of capital, and work as quickly as possible to get big fast without concern for profitability. I�m going to call this the Amazon model, because Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon, has practically become the celebrity spokesmodel for Get Big Fast.

Let�s look at some of the differences between these models. The first thing to ask is: are you going into a business that has competition, or not?

Ben and Jerry�s: Lots of established competitors
Amazon: New technology, no competition at first

If you don�t have any real competition, like Amazon, there is a chance that you can succeed at a �land grab�, that is, get as many customers as quickly as possible, so that later competitors will have a serious barrier to entry. But if you�re going into an industry where there is already a well-established set of competitors, the land-grab idea doesn�t make sense. You need to create your customer base by getting customers to switch over from competitors.

In general, venture capitalists aren�t too enthusiastic about the idea of going into a market with pesky competitors. Personally, I�m not so scared of established competition; perhaps because I worked on Microsoft Excel during a period when it almost completely took over Lotus 123, which virtually had the market to themselves. The number one word processor, Word, displaced WordPerfect, which displaced WordStar, all of which had been near monopolies at one time or another. And Ben and Jerry�s grew to be a fabulous business, even though it�s not like you couldn�t get ice cream before they came along. It�s not impossible to displace a competitor, if that�s what you want to do. (I�ll talk about how to do that in a future Strategy Letter).

Another question about displacing competitors has to do with network effects and lock-in:

Ben and Jerry�s: No network effect; weak customer lock-in
Amazon: Strong network effect, strong customer lock-in

A �network effect� is a situation where the more customers you have, the more customers you will get. It�s based on Metcalfe�s Law: the value of a network is equal to the number of users squared.

A good example is eBay. If you want to sell your old Patek Philippe watch, you�re going to get a better price on eBay, because there are more buyers there. If you want to buy a Patek Philippe watch, you�re going to look on eBay, because there are more sellers there.

Another extremely strong network effect is proprietary chat systems like ICQ or AOL Instant Messenger. If you want to chat with people, you have to go where they are, and ICQ and AOL have the most people by far. Chances are, your friends are using one of those services, not one of the smaller ones like MSN Instant Messenger. With all of Microsoft�s muscle, money, and marketing skill, they are just not going to be able to break into auctions or instant messaging, because the network effects there are so strong.

�Lock-in� is where there is something about the business that makes people not want to switch. Nobody wants to switch their Internet provider, even if the service isn�t very good, because of the hassle of changing your email address and notifying everyone of the new email address. People don�t want to switch word processors if their old files can�t be read by the new word processor.

Even better than lock-in is the sneaky version I call stealth lock-in: services which lock you in without your even realizing it. For example, all those new services like PayMyBills.com which receive your bills for you, scan them in, and show them to you on the Internet. They usually come with three months free service. But when the three months are up, if you don�t want to continue with the service, you have no choice but to contact every single bill provider and ask them to change the billing address back to your house. The sheer chore of doing this is likely to prevent you from switching away from PayMyBills.com � better just to let them keep sucking $8.95 out of your bank account every month. Gotcha!

If you are going into a business that has natural network effects and lock-in, and there are no established competitors, then you better use the Amazon model, or somebody else will, and you simply won�t be able to get a toehold.

Quick case study. In 1998, AOL was spending massively to grow at a rate of a million customers every five weeks. AOL has nice features like chat rooms and instant messaging that provide stealth lock-in. Once you�ve found a group of friends you like to chat with, you are simply not going to switch Internet providers. That�s like trying to get all new friends. In my mind that�s the key reason that AOL can charge around $22 a month when there are plenty of $10 a month Internet providers.

While I was working at Juno, management just failed to understand this point, and they missed their best opportunity to overtake AOL during a land rush when everyone was coming online: they didn�t spend strongly enough on customer acquisition because they didn�t want to dilute existing shareholders by raising more capital, and they didn�t think strategically about chat and IM, so they never developed any software features to provide the kind of stealth lock-in that AOL has. Now Juno has around 3 million people paying them an average of $5.50 a month, while AOL has around 21 million people paying them an average of $17 a month. �Oops.�

Ben and Jerry�s: Little capital required; break even fast
Amazon: Outrageous amounts of capital required; profitability can take years

Ben and Jerry�s companies start on somebody�s credit card. In their early months and years, they have to use a business model that becomes profitable extremely quickly, which may not be the ultimate business model that they want to achieve. For example, you may want to become a giant ice cream company with $200,000,000 in annual sales, but for now, you�re going to have to settle for opening a little ice cream shop in Vermont, hope that it�s profitable, and, if it is, reinvest the profits to expand business steadily. The Ben and Jerry�s corporate history says they started with a $12,000 investment. ArsDigita says that they started with an $11,000 investment. These numbers sound like a typical MasterCard credit limit. Hmmm.

Amazon companies raise money practically as fast as anyone can spend it. There�s a reason for this. They are in a terrible rush. If they are in a business with no competitors and network effects, they better get big super-fast. Every day matters. And there are lots of ways to substitute money for time (see sidebar). Nearly all of them are fun.

Ways to substitute money for time:

- Use prebuilt, furnished executive offices instead of traditional office space. Cost: about 3 times as much. Time saved: several months to a year, depending on market.
- Pay outrageous salaries or offer programmers BMWs as starting bonuses. Cost: about 25% extra for technical staff. Time saved: you can fill openings in 3 weeks instead of the more typical 6 months.
- Hire consultants instead of employees. Cost: about 3 times as much. Time saved: you can get consultants up and running right away.
- Having trouble getting your consultants to give you the time and attention you need? Bribe them with cash until they only want to work for you.
- Spend cash freely to spot-solve problems. If your new star programmer isn�t getting a lot of work done because they are busy setting up their new house and relocating, hire a high class relocation service to do it for them. If it�s taking forever to get phones installed in your new offices, buy a couple of dozen cellular phones. Internet access problems slowing people down? Just get two redundant providers. Provide a concierge available to all employees for picking up dry cleaning, getting reservations, arranging for limos to the airport, etc.

Ben and Jerry�s companies just can�t afford to do this, so they have to settle for growing slowly.

Ben and Jerry�s: Corporate culture is important
Amazon: Corporate culture is impossible

When you are growing faster than about 100% per year, it is simply impossible for mentors to transmit corporate values to new hires. If a programmer is promoted to manager and suddenly has 5 new reports, hired just yesterday, it is simply impossible for there to be very much mentoring. Netscape is the most egregious example of this, growing from 5 to about 2000 programmers in one year. As a result, their culture was a mishmash of different people with different values about the company, all tugging in different directions.

For some companies, this might be OK. For other companies, the corporate culture is an important part of the raison-d��tre of the company. Ben and Jerry�s exists because of the values of the founders, who would not accept growing faster than the rate at which that culture can be promulgated.

Let�s take a hypothetical software example. Suppose you want to break into the market for word processors. Now, this market seems to be pretty sewn up by Microsoft, but you see a niche for people who, for whatever reason, absolutely cannot have their word processors crashing on them. You are going to make a super-robust, industrial strength word processor that just won�t go down and sell it at a premium to people who simply depend on word processors for their lives. (OK, it�s a stretch. I said this was a hypothetical example).

Now, your corporate culture probably includes all kinds of techniques for writing highly-robust code: unit testing, formal code reviews, coding conventions, large QA departments, and so on. These techniques are not trivial; they must be learned over a period of time. While a new programmer is learning how to write robust code, they need to be mentored and coached by someone more experienced.

As soon as you try to grow so fast that mentoring and coaching is impossible, you are simply going to stop transmitting those values. New hires won�t know better and will write unreliable code. They won�t check the return value from malloc(), and their code will fail in some bizarre case that they never thought about, and nobody will have time to review their code and teach them the right way to do it, and your entire competitive advantage over Microsoft Word has been squandered.

Ben and Jerry�s: Mistakes become valuable lessons
Amazon: Mistakes are not really noticed

A company that is growing too fast will simply not notice when it makes a big mistake, especially of the spend-too-much-money kind. Amazon buys Junglee, a comparison shopping service, for around $180,000,000 in stock, and then suddenly realizes that comparison shopping services are not very good for their business, so they just shut it down. Having piles and piles of cash makes stupid mistakes easy to cover up.

Ben and Jerry�s: It takes a long time to get big
Amazon: You get big very fast

Getting big fast gives the impression (if not the reality) of being successful. When prospective employees see that you�re hiring 30 new people a week, they will feel like they are part of something big and exciting and successful which will IPO. They may not be as impressed by a �sleepy little company� with 12 employees and a dog, even if the sleepy company is profitable and is building a better long-term company.

As a rule of thumb, you can make a nice place to work, or you can promise people they�ll get rich quick. But you have to do one of those, or you won�t be able to hire.

Some of your employees will be impressed by a company with a high chance of an IPO that gives out lots of stock options. Such people will be willing to put in three or four years at a company like this, even if they hate every minute of their working days, because they see the pot at the end of the rainbow.

If you�re growing slowly and organically, the pot may be farther off. In that case, you have no choice but to make a work environment where the journey is the reward. It can�t be hectic 80 hour workweeks. The office can�t be a big noisy loft jammed full of folding tables and hard wooden chairs. You have to give people decent vacations. People have to be friends with their co-workers, not just co-workers. Sociology and community at work matter. Managers have to be enlightened and get off people�s backs, they can�t be Dilbertesque micromanagers. If you do all this, you�ll attract plenty of people who have been fooled too many times by dreams of becoming a millionaire in the next IPO; now they are just looking for something sustainable.

Ben and Jerry�s: You�ll probably succeed. You certainly won�t lose too much money.
Amazon: You have a tiny chance of becoming a billionaire, and a high chance of just failing.

With the Ben and Jerry�s model, if you�re even reasonably smart, you�re going to succeed. It may be a bit of a struggle, there may be good years and bad years, but unless we have another depression, you�re certainly not going to lose too much money, because you didn�t put in too much to begin with.

The trouble with the Amazon model is that all anybody thinks about is Amazon. And there�s only one Amazon. You have to think of the other 95% of companies which spend an astonishing amount of venture capital and then simply fail because nobody wants to buy their product. At least, if you follow the Ben and Jerry�s model, you�ll know that nobody wants your product long before you spend more than one MasterCard�s worth of credit limit on it.

The Worst Thing You Can Do

The worst thing you can do is fail to decide whether you�re going to be a Ben and Jerry�s company or an Amazon company.

If you�re going into a market with no existing competition, lock-in, and network effects, you better use the Amazon model, or you�re going the way of Wordsworth.com, which started two years before Amazon, and nobody�s ever heard of them. Or even worse, you�re going to be a ghost site like MSN Auctions with virtually no chance of ever overcoming ebay. (And of course now 17 years later Amazon and eBay are still around and no one knows that Woodsworth or MSN Auctions even existed)

If you�re going into an established market, getting big fast is a fabulous way of wasting tons of money, as did BarnesandNoble.com. Your best hope is to do something sustainable and profitable, so that you have years to slowly take over your competition.

Still can�t decide? There are other things to consider. Think of your personal values. Would you rather have a company like Amazon or a company like Ben and Jerry�s? Read a couple of corporate histories � Amazon and Ben and Jerry�s for starters, even though they are blatant hagiographies, and see which one jibes more with your set of core values. Actually, an even better model for a Ben and Jerry�s company is Microsoft, and there are lots of histories of Microsoft. Microsoft was, in a sense, �lucky� to land the PC-DOS deal, but the company was profitable and growing all along, so they could have hung around indefinitely waiting for their big break.

Think of your risk/reward profile. Do you want to take a shot at being a billionaire by the time you�re 35, even if the chances of doing that make the lottery look like a good deal? Ben and Jerry�s companies are not going to do that for you.

Probably the worst thing you can do is to decide that you have to be an Amazon company, and then act like a Ben and Jerry�s company (while in denial all the time). Amazon companies absolutely must substitute cash for time whenever they can. You may think you�re smart and frugal by insisting on finding programmers who will work at market rates. But you�re not so smart, because that�s going to take you six months, not two months, and those 4 months might mean you miss the Christmas shopping season, so now it cost you a year, and probably made your whole business plan unviable. You may think that it�s smart to have a Mac version of your software, as well as a Windows version, but if it takes you twice as long to ship while your programmers build a compatibility layer, and you only get 15% more customers, well, you�re not going to look so smart, then, are you?

Both models work, but you�ve got to pick one and stick to it, or you�ll find things mysteriously going wrong and you won�t quite know why.

this is the problem with everyone in silicon valley chasing unicorns. there's probably plenty of opportunity to grow a ben and jerry's/microsoft-style corporation right now but it seems like the only things getting funded are ridiculous pie in the sky ideas that are all on the amazon model. or maybe there are microsoft-style companies out there that are doing well but we haven't heard of them.

# ¿ Jan 15, 2017 18:50

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

Absurd Alhazred posted:

If I were setting up a Ben & Jerry's company I would stay the heck away from VC's, even if they were interested. Why mess up your control structure and leverage yourself, especially when, as they say, you can survive without crazy funding rounds?

hm, good point. if you can self-raise the capital you should be fine and avoid all the investment silly season.

# ¿ Jan 15, 2017 18:56

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

Redmark posted:

Does Salesforce count?

i don't know much about them, other than they have an actual product that seems to work well and aren't getting involved in any drama.

so...sure?

# ¿ Jan 15, 2017 19:09

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

Senor Dog posted:

That article says the strike was only from 6-7 and Uber's tweet was at 7:36. Did Uber actually scab (as in turn off surge pricing even earlier) and I'm reading the article wrong, or what am I missing?

the tweet does not prove or disprove whether uber was scabbing or not.

that said, given their reputation they almost certainly were. i hope the backlash over this fucks them right out of the market. bleeding tons of money and everyone hates you? that's a good combo.

# ¿ Jan 30, 2017 04:36

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

divabot posted:

Some speculation on just how much of a problem being sued by Alphabet will be for Uber, particularly when they get to discovery.

knowing how absolutely scummy uber is i have no doubt that Otto was conceived from the start as a (very dumb) scheme to steal google's IP.

# ¿ Mar 13, 2017 22:26

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

Doggles posted:

Remember that guy who stole self-driving car prototypes from Google to start his own business, and then sold that business to Uber? Turns out he was still working for Google at the time he did it.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/04/uber-exec-accused-of-stealing-from-google-made-120m-while-working-on-the-side/

And new updates roll in. Now Uber/that guy are claiming they can't disclose anything related to the acquisition on grounds of self-incrimination in criminal proceedings.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/04/ubers-levandowski-really-doesnt-want-to-talk-about-any-waymo-documents

quote:

When Uber bought Anthony Levandowski's startup Otto for $680 million, an unnamed third party conducted a "due diligence review." Now, Levandowski and his lawyers are fighting hard to keep that review under wraps.

Google's Waymo self-driving car spinoff sued Uber in February. Waymo said that Otto, and now Uber, is using technology that Levandowski stole from Google, where he worked until early 2016.

In a document filed in court this afternoon, Levandowski says that US District Judge William Alsup should modify an earlier discovery order to protect Levandowski's Fifth Amendment rights. Levandowski's lawyers want the court to make clear that neither Uber nor Levandowski should be compelled to say who did the review or what documents, if any, were reviewed.

"[R]equiring disclosure of these facts would separately violate Mr. Levandowski's Fifth Amendment right not to be compelled to reveal the existence, location, possession, or identity of any documents that might furnish a link in a chain of possible incrimination," states the motion (PDF).

Levandowski's lawyers want to avoid disclosing even a "privilege log," which would be a list of documents they believe are protected by attorney-client privilege. Even revealing such a log "would violate Mr. Levandowski's right against self-incrimination," the motion advises.

Tuesday's motion continues:

Plaintiffs are certainly free to use any legitimate tools of civil discovery to locate evidence they deem relevant to their civil lawsuit. But they are not free to use the power and authority of this Court to order disclosures that are protected under Mr. Levandowski's Fifth Amendment rights.

The Court cannot, consistent with the Fifth Amendment, order Mr. Levandowski�or any counsel owing obligations of attorney-client confidentiality to him�to disclose information that could furnish a "link in the chain" to the existence, possession, location, or identity of evidence that may be used in any possible criminal prosecution of Mr. Levandowski.

Google must reply to Levandowski's motion tomorrow, and a hearing on the matter is scheduled for Thursday. US District Judge William Alsup will address other discovery matters in a hearing today.

What the gently caress did they do? :stare:

# ¿ Apr 5, 2017 15:33

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

rscott posted:

Uber took a bunch of VC and paid a Google executive to commit industrial espionage

I suspect it's either that or Uber knew Otto was built entirely on stolen tech and told their due diligence team to suppress sending any documents that would expose that fact.

Either way they are turbo-hosed. Good riddance.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ¿ Apr 5, 2017 16:01

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

exploded mummy posted:

The actions taken thus far has been civil, and as such invoking the fifth meant that the case has now possibly escalated into the realm of criminal, which is what I believe axeil was trying to emphasize.

This is correct.

Claiming the 5th in a civil case is very unorthodox as far as I'm aware as it implies you/your attorneys believe there is criminal wrong-doing you need to be shielded from but IANAL so if an actual lawyer has better insight I defer to them.

At the very least, it implies there could be a criminal investigation which I don't think anyone really saw coming.

Subjunctive posted:

What's the significance of that difference?

Is it like asking for a lawyer as soon as the cops show up, instead of talking with them a bit first?

Again, IANAL but to my knowledge you can't refuse to hand over documents as evidence. You can't be compelled to verbally testify against yourself but if you wrote a document that said "it's me I did it" or had other physical pieces of evidence you can be compelled to turn those over.

axeil fucked around with this message at 21:30 on Apr 5, 2017

# ¿ Apr 5, 2017 21:27

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

Today in "Uber is hosed":

Uber unable to produce subpoenaed documents related to the Waymo/Google case. Judge smacks them down and says they're cruisin' for a preliminary injunction.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/04/judge-orders-uber-to-search-servers-work-harder-to-find-waymos-14000-files/

Ars posted:

Judge orders Uber to search servers, work harder to find Waymo�s 14,000 files

"In 42 years, I've never seen a record this strong. You are up against it."

SAN FRANCISCO�The federal judge overseeing the trade secret litigation between Google's Waymo division and Uber said today that he's likely to slap Uber with an injunction unless the company does more to produce the 14,000 documents allegedly stolen by its self-driving car chief, Anthony Levandowski.

"The court gave its order, a very clear order, as to what was supposed to be produced by March 31," said Google lawyer David Perlson at the beginning of an hour-long hearing in federal court. "They have not complied with the order, in numerous respects."

Perlson said no one from Uber came to look at the 14,000 documents that were allegedly stolen, even though Google made them available. "They haven't obtained anything from Mr. Levandowski personally."

"We�ve repeatedly asked them for a return of these 14k documents, and they basically ignored us," said Perlson. "A lot of that is due to the fact that Mr. Levandowski is not cooperating, on some baseless 5th Amendment privilege ground."

"We will demonstrate that those 14,000 files never made it to Uber," responded Uber lawyer Arturo Gonzalez. "Let me tell you what we've done to comply."

Gonzalez said that his law firm, together with forensic consultants, interviewed 85 people at Uber who used to work at Google, including 42 who worked in Google's automotive division. They also randomly searched computers and looked at the engineers' Git director but couldn't find any of the files.

"We searched 12 terabytes of data in two weeks," said Gonzalez. "That's the equivalent of 8.3 billion pages of text. So any suggestion that we�re not looking is extremely unfair."

"We found 3,100 hits," he continued. "But you know what? They're not substantive. Most of these 14,000 documents are not trade secrets at all."

That argument didn't find favor with US District Judge William Alsup, who is overseeing the case. Whether the files are trade secrets or not, they were "important enough."

"Well, why did he take [them] then?" demanded Alsup. "He downloaded 14,000 files, he wiped clean the computer, and he took [them] with him. That's the record." He continued:

He�s not denying it. You're not denying it. No one on your side is denying he has the 14,000 files. Maybe you will. But if it's going to be denied, how can he take the 5th Amendment? This is an extraordinary case. In 42 years, I've never seen a record this strong. You are up against it. And you are looking at a preliminary injunction, even if what you tell me is true.

"We�re digging and we�re digging," said Gonzalez. "I firmly believe the reason we�re not finding this information is because it didn�t make it to Uber. The only thing the record shows so far is that 14,000 files may or may not have been taken. They have to show that we are using them."

"No, no, no," responded Alsup. "They made a showing that your lead person has 14,000 of their files. That could lead to a preliminary injunction that Mr. Levandowski cannot work on this project."

The hearing ended with Uber agreeing to a search of all relevant servers, using 15 search terms of Google's choice�and agreeing to Alsup's instruction that they search everyone at their company that has anything to do with LiDAR.

"Is that too hard?" Alsup asked rhetorically. "In a case this big? Where your company might get a prelim injunction?"

"I don�t know how long it will take," said Gonzalez. "But I agree. It's an enormous number of servers."

The parties will reconvene tomorrow for another hearing, which will focus on Levandowski's recent argument that the Fifth Amendment should protect him from speaking about the 14,000 missing files. Levandowski, who is not a defendant in the case, has separate counsel who was present at the hearing today but didn't speak.

# ¿ Apr 6, 2017 15:15

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

call to action posted:

Does wiping the files and hoping people don't find out become a good option at this point?

I figured the more likely scenario was that they're stored on an external flash drive that is never connected to the overall Uber system.

That or Uber has some crazy system that masks files related to lawsuits. I mean it sounds nutty but then again they had a routine in their app that prevented cops from finding them operating in jurisdictions where they're not allowed.

pre-emptive puppy so i don't get probated again:

# ¿ Apr 6, 2017 15:34

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

pangstrom posted:

Yeah that's what I was thinking, except then you've got a problem getting relevant information to your engineers etc., or outright telling them "hey these documents can't be on the system for uh reasons" which would be a bad idea even in the context of a man who apparently has a lot of bad ideas. Maybe he condensed crucial stuff in some summary documents, or maybe he just poured over them himself to give his folks "helpful design tips" or "avenues to explore"?

Yeah I figured he either summarized the documents, re-created them in a way that wouldn't trip searches for the same documents or somehow put the stuff on an air-gapped server that Uber isn't aware of. Of course this assumes that Uber is telling the truth that they searched and didn't find them. I find it much more likely they "searched" or have some sort of masking program for all their shady/unethical documents to prevent discovery.

Arsenic Lupin posted:

You'd expect somebody to slip and copy something over, just because people are careless. "I need this on my local share because other reasons."

If Uber lose this one, their self-driving division is probably toast, but how much of a dent would it make on Uber proper? Would the punitive damages be big enough to make a dent?

Uber's business model straight up fails if they lack self-driving tech in the next 5 years. They're only getting 40% of the revenue needed to cover the cost of each ride with a human driver and are bleeding money. There's no chance of another round of venture capital funding given all the problems they have and an IPO would be a disaster. On top of that they're already having issues retaining drivers because the pay is so horrible. if they need to jack up rates they're going to hemorrhage customers and go into a death spiral.

It'd be like if Netflix lost money on every DVD they mailed you and were legally barred from making an online streaming service. It's potentially a death sentence.

# ¿ Apr 6, 2017 16:00

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

MikeCrotch posted:

I'm pretty sure Google found out about this whole thing through someone doing database forensics and discovering that Levandowski has downloaded 14,000 onto external media in a suspect way, just before leaving the company.

Also their manufacturer calling them and saying "uh Uber just asked us to make literally the exact same LIDAR part we made for you and we are telling you so we don't get sued for giving other people your IP, you may want to check this out"

puppy:

# ¿ Apr 6, 2017 16:15

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

fishmech posted:

See also: people hyped themselves up that Tesla's Model 3 would be the first "affordable" (read: only as expensive as a pretty typical car) electric car with decent range. Turns out Chevy released their Bolt several months ago, with slightly better range and basically the same price the Model 3 was targeted at, while the Model 3 still isn't really in production. Turns out no amount of trying to crush unions and hype yourself up as a disruptor is enough to make up your disadvantages against a full on auto manufacturer.

Oh also the Tesla interior looks like this (which Elon Musk claimed was neccesary for the cost iirc):

While the Chevy looks like a normal car that doesn't shove all indicators and controls onto a single screen:

I'm not sure if not being first to market will matter for Tesla, they've got a strong brand identity in the electric space.

As far as interior design goes, that has nothing to do with being an electric vehicle. Different car brands have different looking interiors. Tesla's "thing" is having all indicators on a central console panel. Chevy's design doesn't have that. A Mazda doesn't look the same as a Honda which doesn't look the same as a Tesla, etc. I don't think that's a fair criticism of Tesla's strategy (although if you personally don't like it, it's a fair argument for why you'd prefer one over the other).

# ¿ Apr 6, 2017 17:03

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

Zachack posted:

IMO the Bolt price being roughly the same as a Volt does not help it. I bought a Volt because the ~50 mile range means I get most of the work week without having to charge it overnight, and the gas option means longer distance travel can be done without planning or considering charge stations. I've owned the Volt for about 3.5 months and only filled the gas tank once, and even then I probably didn't need to thanks to an unexpected charging station at my destination.

Yeah I remember when the Volt was first announced I thought it was far more attractive than a pure-EV vehicle and yet I still didn't get one when I got a new car (a Chevy even) because the additional cost just didn't make much of a sense from a savings perspective.

Possibly people aren't buying the Bolt because it's "just" a Chevy while Tesla has some better branding so it's seen as more of a status symbol, like the Prius back in the early 00s.

# ¿ Apr 6, 2017 18:11

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

stop_hes_already_dead.avi

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/04/uber-said-to-use-sophisticated-software-to-defraud-drivers-passengers/

Ars posted:

Uber said to use �sophisticated� software to defraud drivers, passengers
Class action says Uber's "methodical scheme" manipulates rider fares, driver pay.

Uber has devised a "clever and sophisticated" scheme in which it manipulates navigation data used to determine "upfront" rider fare prices while secretly short-changing the driver, according to a proposed class-action lawsuit against the ride-hailing app.

When a rider uses Uber's app to hail a ride, the fare the app immediately shows to the passenger is based on a slower and longer route compared to the one displayed to the driver. The software displays a quicker, shorter route for the driver. But the rider pays the higher fee, and the driver's commission is paid from the cheaper, faster route, according to the lawsuit.

"Specifically, the Uber Defendants deliberately manipulated the navigation data used in determining the fare amount paid by its users and the amount reported and paid to its drivers," according to the suit filed in federal court in Los Angeles. Lawyers representing a Los Angeles driver for Uber, Sophano Van, said the programming was "shocking, "methodical," and "extensive."

The suit (PDF), which labeled the implementation of Uber's technology as a "well-planned scheme to deceive drivers and users," is one of a number of lawsuits targeting the San Francisco-based company. The suits range from disputes over drivers' employment rights to sex discrimination to trade-secrets theft. Just weeks ago, Uber's CEO, Travis Kalanick, declared that he needed "leadership help."

This latest lawsuit claims that Uber implemented the so-called "upfront" pricing scheme in September and informed drivers that fares are calculated on a per-mile and per-minute charge for the estimated distance and time of a ride. "However, the software that calculates the upfront price that is displayed and charged to the Users calculates the expected distance and time utilizing a route that is often longer in both distance and time to the one displayed in the driver�s application," according to the suit.

In the end, the rider pays a higher fee because the software calculates a longer route and displays that to the passenger. Yet the driver is paid a lower rate based on a quicker route, according to the suit. Uber keeps "the difference charged to the User and the fare reported to the driver, in addition to the service fee and booking fee disclosed to drivers," according to the suit.

The manipulation of prices between the amount charged to Users and the amount reported to drivers is clever and sophisticated. The software utilized in determining the upfront price is specifically designed to provide a route distance and time estimate based on traffic conditions and other variables but not to determine the shortest/quickest reasonable route based on those conditions. Meanwhile, the software utilized in the driver�s application, which navigates the drivers to the User�s destination, utilizes traffic conditions and other variables to provide the driver with a more efficient, shorter, or quicker route to the User�s destination, resulting in a lower fare payout to the driver.

The suit claims breach of contract, unjust enrichment, fraud, and unfair competition. The suit seeks back pay and legal fees, and it demands a halt to "the unlawful, deceptive, fraudulent, and unfair business practices."

Uber did not immediately respond for comment.

# ¿ Apr 6, 2017 19:30

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

aware of dog posted:

So who's gonna play Kalanick in the Adam McKay movie about Uber?

E: also, the FDA just reversed course and gave 23andMe approval to sell disease-predisposition tests

What was the rationale before for denying them? Is this a good thing or bad thing for everyone? Do we finally have those clinics from GATTACA where we can take our SO's DNA to be tested?

# ¿ Apr 6, 2017 21:36

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

aware of dog posted:

Here's an article about the reversal. If I understand it, the FDA had concerns about the accuracy of their tests, and they didn't want people to be misled by a risk assessment into "self-diagnosing" in a certain sense. They're limited to tests for 10 diseases, and maybe their tech has improved in the past few years. I think the fear is that consumers won't properly interpret the results of these tests and try to prevent the diseases on their own in ways that may be more harmful than helpful.

Huh. Presumably doing the test and then if the percent chance is high enough you should talk with a doctor to see if there's anything you can do to decrease the risk would be the medically prudent advice, no? Although now that I look at the list I'm not sure there's much to be done about the genetic diseases they test for.

edit: I think the big part of the article is buried at the end. 23andMe worked with the FDA to get their tests up to the caliber needed for approval and eventually got the approval, with potential new tests getting future approval. Compare that to Uber who constantly pisses on everyone. It's almost like...regulators aren't assholes who want to arbitrarily block stuff but have legitimate concerns that, if addressed will pave the way to approval!

axeil fucked around with this message at 22:06 on Apr 6, 2017

# ¿ Apr 6, 2017 22:02

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

Discendo Vox posted:

They had a whole exhibit about what a boondoggle the Concord was.

But the Concord was Cool and Good and who cares that it could only land at like 3 airports in the world because otherwise it would cause shockwaves that destroyed local homes/businesses?

Actually though I really thought the Concord was neat and served a niche for people who for whatever reason really need to make a trans-Atlantic flight fast

# ¿ Apr 27, 2017 21:33

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

A Man With A Plan posted:

Yeah I'm familiar, was speaking about future expansion. My ideal future line (besides the Purple) is one that would go in a semicircle from georgetown, connecticut ave, admo, columbia heights, bloomingdale, then head south and hit H street, and finish around Lincoln park / Eastern market. Also it would be nice if it was open past midnight and didn't catch on fire, but can't have everything.

My ideal for Metro is also for it to not constantly catch on fire/break/be utterly hosed by horrific management and lovely workers. It is loving incredible that someone who falsified safety records that led to a woman's death was forced to be re-hired. Everyone involved in that from top to bottom should've been gone and the organization should've done some serious reform. Instead they just shuffled some stuff around and ignored that it was a complete failure of management and workers to actually give a poo poo about anything. The system is so badly hosed.

They should work on fixing all their usability/reliability issues before expanding more. The Silver Line opening is when everything started to go to poo poo. I mean hell, they killed off all the late night hours on the weekends because they were unable to actually keep things from catching on fire and killing people without those extra ~6 hours/week.

There could probably be a huge book written about how at every juncture Metro has taken the wrong step. I will say, at least the new GM seems to give a poo poo unlike the previous dude who lied through his teeth and resigned before poo poo really started to hit the fan. Of course, none of this is ever going to get fixed because the only way to do it is both massively increase funding and guarantee funding and the entire region is hesitant to do so because Metro has done poo poo like pay a billion dollars for Metro Forward which did nothing but create sexist advertisements make the tracks catch on fire more.

If there was one area where maybe some ~*disruption*~ could do some good it's public transit. At least here in DC the incumbent doesn't give a poo poo about following safety regulations and creating a product people want to use, so it couldn't be any worse. Maybe if Musk's boring company can make some kinda crazy underground autonomous car thing work it'll help fix what ails transit in America.

axeil fucked around with this message at 17:38 on Apr 30, 2017

# ¿ Apr 30, 2017 17:32

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 4, 2024 07:17

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

blah_blah posted:

I agree. But the issue here isn't those assignment of invention clauses that virtually everyone at every tech company signs. The issue is large-scale theft of intellectual property. There's no point in conflating the two.

Yeah this isn't "I made a cool little app on my own time that turns out to have some serious implications so I'm quitting and making a new company", this is "I literally stole the stuff I built for you and sold it to another company."

The first the primary company either isn't going to care or you can negotiate some kind of settlement. The second involves people going to jail and businesses being fined into the ground.

edit: Even the first case can be bad if the "cool little app" is important enough, because it's basically what happened to Facebook and Zuck had to pay out millions. It's just that the second is so much worse.

axeil fucked around with this message at 16:43 on May 5, 2017

# ¿ May 5, 2017 16:39

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Tech Nightmares: Ghostline the flux

«‹›2 »