i don't understand a business concept that provides essentially a combination between what you get at a public library and what you get at a workplace for a fee.
they are a "salon" for techno-imperialists who think they are too good to stare at a computer at a library or starbucks
if they make money though, i guess they prove me wrong.
I'm kind of sad it's come to the point where different regions of America claim they're "subsidizing" other regions populated by other Americans.
I mean, I'm sick of "subsidizing" all the black people in the US; why can't we just kick them all out? (this was sarcasm)
Of course, there is no way for me to know whether or not the time difference between the US and Moscow is significant enough to prevent HackerNews IRA shifts from happening.
By 'subsiding', I mean other ares of the state get the funds, while the subway (which most poor people in NYC take), get shafted. In real life that means a poor person going to work gets fired because they are late again, as the subway broke down yet again, and taking a taxi is too expensive/cost prohibitive for them.
Yes, it affects most poor and middle class people in NYC. Remember, rich people probably use uber/limos/black-cars and don't have to mingle with the 'commoners' down there.
the financial industry and poor people who happen to live in nyc are very, very, very disparate things.
when you're the global headquarters for a globally important industries, you're in a separate world from the problems around you. which is probably best. note how the bay area housing crisis, although caused by tech firms, is pretty handily ignored by people who helped cause it.
I think they're lying when they say that they haven't seen a noticeable impact in usage. Plenty of people I know can see through their BS and want to delete their FB or already have.
Society probably shouldn't use social media at all. Facebook has every intent on making its use a social norm.
from a political perspective, no. if you care about actual technological accomplishments, as a technologist, peter thiel's endorsement should matter a lot.
Sampling is studied as a way to save time without running a census for every experiment. Many universities use this technique. An intro to stats course could probably be found on Coursera that will go into this.
I'll just say it, from someone who is similarly in your boat:
if you're even questioning it, there's probably something there
think about someone who is questioning their sexuality. there has to be some reason they're doing it.
i agree that there are probably varying degrees, like everything, but comeon...you're obviously very aware of the stigma. bipolar people who are highly functioning exist, and your doctors' metric is probably quality of life. if you can hold it together, it's not really life-affecting. it's just the way you are.
you could probably say you are bipolar-ish but have developed systems on your own for dealing with it.
google is supposedly worth 800 billion. hasnt paid a dividend and probably never will.
valuations are as much measurements of cult-ness as actual sustainable monetary gain. I'm suspicious of founder-led, constantly "reinvesting" companies or companies that stay private for too many years. Seems Bernie Madoff-y.
Investors do not demand that companies pay a dividend, and prefer companies do not issue a dividend, when the company is growing rapidly. Investors would prefer to keep that cash in the business, to use as fuel for further growth.
Recently, Alphabet and Google revenue growth has been around or above 20% per year. Take a look at their Q4 2017 earnings statement [1]. Here is a table based on figures in Item 6:
Compare to the net operating revenue of a company like Coca-Cola [2], which pays about $1.50 dividend per share per year on a price of about $0-47 per share:
Most investors in companies like Google expect to get more return by keeping cash within the business to use for growth, resulting in share appreciation, than they would get by receiving a dividend. If growth slows or stops then investor sentiment will change. There are other figures to consider, but these figures represent significant growth for a company of Google's size.
Madoff's business was a scam and pyramid scheme that depended on a steady stream of new investors to pay off his old investors. Google and Coca-cola operate real businesses that collect revenue from paying customers; Google's is growing rapidly while Coke is holding steady or declining. There's no similarity to Madoff.
Nobody should pay any attention to the metric because it's a silly way to value a company. Think about it: there are about 7 billion pairs of eyeballs, ignoring maybe 1% who are legally blind and/or Braille ads do not exist. 110/7 => Google revenue is generating $15.7 per viewer per year. And Google expects people to believe that this value will increase each year, when the denominator is increasing and the numerator is decreasing due to competition.
Viewed as an advertiser (Google's real customers), I would like this number to come down over time.
Google definitely isn't reaching all (non-blind) people on Earth yet, and even then most of the people that is it reaching can probably be monetized a lot more.
If a company can perpetually grow their stock value and never have to pay dividends, smart investors would always prefer stock appreciation to dividends.
You can sell off shares of the company to get your returns. Which will be taxed at capital gains rates.
Any money you receive through dividends will have had to pay corporate tax first.
im not trying to be anything. its a cnbc headline, not some kid writing a term paper. if you know the subject it should be a mediocre joke. why are you calling people elitist for math jokes on a programming forum??
I think GP's point is that there is no such thing as "semi-infinite" and thus they can feel superior to them for not understanding how infinite infinity is.
