How in the world is a tweet about funding methodology even close to outrageous content that tip toes into banishment? You're losing the plot, friend.
It's simply a tweet to say he gets more value from talking directly with the founders about what he wants to know. Seems pretty reasonable to me, but I could see how a certain audience would say ** context and ignore to categorize it as "controversial edgy tweets". Easy to rile those people up though without challenging the algo.
Ok, but is that true for GCP? The GCP portfolio seems to be intentionally run differently than products elsewhere within Google.
Looking at that list, there's not much of a record for GCP products. I'm just skimming, maybe Chatbase but I believe the plan was always to integrate it into Dialogflow itself.
I think it's irrelevant to what was being said in their conversation. In Marc's context, being fake/shit equated to non-replicable simply. Before that quote, I believe he was talking about the replication crisis briefly.
C'mon guy, that's not good faith argument. I have a whole twitter full of folks calling for war crimes against what China's doing; Not to mention, Disney got plenty of backlash for that move from the people paying attention. (Google Disney Xinjiang and it's so ubiquitous I don't feel the need to link myself)
Seems your problem is more with mainstream media. You're deflecting from the argument at hand here. Not to mention, the wrongs of the Israeli cybersec industry, like with NSO group, seem much less covered than Xinjiang genocide (to me, but I'm sure there's ways to quantify the coverage differential)
Shh... The product marketing-authored deck on common objections doesn't care about SMBs. No offense to the original comment, but that's such a rehearsed answer that as you mentioned is irrelevant (despite sounding good on the surface) to everyone else.
A contract like Deutsche Bank means dedicated GCP customer engineers, professional service engagements at the highest levels, direct conversations with individual product leaders/managers, roadmaps conveyed to their needs, alphas etc etc.
If it's irrelevant to the Deutsche Bank's of customers, then it's of course fair game to get f'd with.
The day big tech companies learned that democrats would chair all the congressional committees that oversee them, these kinds of actions started happening. If that doesn't concern you, I don't know what to tell you.
It's simply a tweet to say he gets more value from talking directly with the founders about what he wants to know. Seems pretty reasonable to me, but I could see how a certain audience would say ** context and ignore to categorize it as "controversial edgy tweets". Easy to rile those people up though without challenging the algo.