Some jobs just rely on attracting and retaining people with no boundaries and no ability to set them. Startups are great at this. They foster a sense of community between the workers and then understaff/overbook the team. When the invariable crisis rolls in no one even has to tell people to work until 5 am. They just do it because no one wants to "let down the team".
My last job I was at least the fourth or fifth person to break down and cry at work. Plenty of those happened in meetings where the boss man was present. They just quietly get replaced and that's that. Burn em and churn em. Never shows up on the ledger and everyone writes it off as a crazy one-off situation.
Then oh gosh a big deadline hits and we're down a person, better show off what a team player we are and make sure we hit the deadline.
Businesses have gotten larger and more powerful than the governments that are supposed to regulate them. Moreover, infested the relevant regulatory agencies.
Fair enough, but there may be a small middle ground between "guaranteeing a return" and "never made a dime in profit and in fact is burning through millions or billions of dollars annually with no expectation to stop any time soon"
>We have incurred net losses in all periods since we began operations and we expect we will continue to incur net losses for the foreseeable future.
The admission that "we've never made money and there's a good chance we never will" being boilerplate S-1 copy is monstrously troubling.
When no one needs to see that a company can made a dollar before investing because profit is for suckers and this company's probably going to be a unicorn, maybe that's the stock tip from the shoeshine boy.
>After the election to the presidency a few months later of a white supremacist
This is why skimming is important. It gives you a rough idea of what the author's voice, style, and opinion are; from that you can determine whether you want to invest the time to read the article in full.
I grew up with absentee parents. This is an unwelcome spin on that situation. I can't even give an opinion on this that doesn't immediately fly into rage. I just hope I don't try to pair off with someone who ends up getting hoodwinked by articles like this. This is disgusting.
It's definitely like that on the internet; a lot of people on both sides of the US political spectrum seem to think there are two problems:
1 - Their chosen political party is not pushing far left/right enough
2 - The opposing party is obviously criminally bent on destroying the country.
Actually maybe three problems; the third being that "centrists" (anyone who isn't radicalized one way or the other) haven't come out against the party that's obviously criminally bent on destroying the country.
I guess that might bleed into real-world politics, but it's unfortunate. I think I remember when it was more "their political ideas are stupid and don't work" and less "they're 100% acting in bad faith and literally trying to destroy the nation".
All I can say is prepare for some hard times, followed by the US not having the geopolitical 1st place. Maybe it's too stark a warning but unless we start to see each other as something other than demons hell-bent on destroying all good in the world, I don't see how anything productive is going to happen.
A note of hope though - the AOC/Cruz collaboration sounds nice.
>We're not going to delete it but we're going to algorithmically prevent discovery
Tech monoliths like facebook, google, and twitter are starting to show very obvious political biases.
If we push them to be equitable to differing opinions, they basically get to continue enforcing their own political biases because we can only ever do blackbox testing. God knows what the backend is doing.
If we push them to own their biases try to get more platforms representing differing political opinions, we create admitted echo chambers and further polarize a political climate (in the USA) where we're already arguing whether communists or nazis are trying to destroy the country.
This is a complex problem without an easy solution but it's not unreasonable to bet twitter is going to abuse this new feature to either allow people they like to blatantly violate the rules (without actually algorithmically demoting the tweets, people will ignore the notice) or effectively shadowban people they don't like without explaining why a tweet doesn't follow the ToS until the subject matter is out of the news cycle.
>We're not going to delete it but we're going to algorithmically prevent discovery
Tech monoliths like facebook, google, and twitter are starting to show very obvious political biases.
If we push them to be equitable to differing opinions, they basically get to continue enforcing their own political biases because we can only ever do blackbox testing. God knows what the backend is doing.
If we push them to own their biases try to get more platforms representing differing political opinions, we create admitted echo chambers and further polarize a political climate (in the USA) where we're already arguing whether communists or nazis are trying to destroy the country.
This is a complex problem without an easy solution but it's not unreasonable to bet twitter is going to abuse this new feature to either allow people they like to blatantly violate the rules (without actually algorithmically demoting the tweets, people will ignore the notice) or effectively shadowban people they don't like without explaining why a tweet doesn't follow the ToS until the subject matter is out of the news cycle.
>If these drivers get everything they want, I cannot imagine a scenario where fares do not go through the roof, which will likely lead to a decrease in demand, which will have a negative effect on take-home pay for drivers.
With that in mind, revisit page 8 of uber's S1 document(link below), where their momentum towards profitability depends of a circle of arrows where
more drivers/driver availability → lower fares/wait times → more riders → more driver opportunity/earning potential → more drivers
Now just turn the arrows backwards and swap out less/more lower/higher ; if something like unionization occurs that's the path through which uber will (according to their own rubric) spiral down to 0.
The only way they could prevent hemorrhaging drivers and users once that spiral started would be to burn through VC money at a faster rate.
Is this another one of those companies whose S1 says "We're not profitable and may never be"?
Why is that the right time to go public? Once the company has an obligation to move towards profitability, doesn't that expose its investors to the risk of another startup subsidizing the same product or service with VC money, undercutting the new established brand?
Like if slack wants to become profitable they probably need to push more people to the paid version of the app, but then won't another company just make a clone and convert some VC cash into a runway with which to poach slack's userbase, and eventually file an S1 saying "we're not profitable and may never be"?
I'm struggling to understand why this keeps working, because no one seems to have a problem with it at all.
My last job I was at least the fourth or fifth person to break down and cry at work. Plenty of those happened in meetings where the boss man was present. They just quietly get replaced and that's that. Burn em and churn em. Never shows up on the ledger and everyone writes it off as a crazy one-off situation.
Then oh gosh a big deadline hits and we're down a person, better show off what a team player we are and make sure we hit the deadline.