This makes sense, SF benefited a lot from the social/mobile/on demand boom. Silicon Valley is set to benefit more from the AI/ML hype as this as stronger ties to academia, and also older, more academic type engineers who don't get as much value from living in the denser city of SF (that the mobile/social/on demand startups did).
Long term both cities will dominate and I don't see this as a structural change, this just seems like a shift based off of what is popular in VC funding right now.
Yes, in themrealm of grand generalizations: the valley has been more tech oriented and "historically" (Las 20 years) SF more market oriented.
When I moved to the Bay Area in '84 there was no tech in SF at all, and around 1999 when Hummer Winblad opened their office at South Park people would write articles about them asking why you would open an office way up there.
"If you follow several of the steps I outline in this story (unless you go with Google Voice), you’ll end up with at least three email addresses: your current primary one, one just for your mobile carrier, and one that you use for other sensitive accounts such as online banking or Facebook or Dropbox."
Why not just have all sites that require SMS 2FA (there are a lot, including tele co.s) be directed to a personal google voice number? And also remove the any SMS 2FA from this google and your personal? Wouldn't that solve the issue they are suggesting? Why do you need a third account?
Yes but what you are describing is essentially unsecured debt. The government is guaranteeing your loans, why do you think student loan rates are so much cheaper than credit cards?
The price you pay for that guarantee is that you can't declare bankruptcy. The government is propping up this industry and it has some parallels to the US housing before 08 (encouraging lending to subprime homebuyers)
It's very common for relationships between superiors-subordinates to be banned or to have very specific steps which must be taken. Of course, for a superior to be 'making out' with someone at an event is potentially a whole different thing.
A subordinate in the context of a business org structure means someone who reports up into him, whether directly or indirectly. If the person reports up into someone who is his peer, say, the VP of Finance or VP of Marketing, then you would not refer to the person as his subordinate. And, in most (US) companies, a relationship between him and such a person in a different section of the company would not be considered problematic or against policy.
I see, so most employees in Product would be his subordinate but not someone in a different organization, and this is typically the line at which American coorporations consider a relationship problematic? Thanks for the clarification.
Yeah, only a small number of co's would prohibit relationships altogether. It's pretty common to prohibit it in ones where there is a (direct or indirect) reporting relationship.
> Wow you don't even have the balls to stick by you're snarky comment you coward
I'm not sure what you mean. Which part of my comment did I back down from? "Chances are" means the same thing as "the odds are good"...
> Subordinate != someone lower in org chart that does not report to you, so no, its not statistically likely.
You'll have to forgive me if there is some specific business definition of subordinate I'm missing... my understanding of subordinate is more in line with this one (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subordinate)
> placed in or occupying a lower class, rank, or position
Just because someone doesn't directly report to you, doesn't mean that the woman's boss can't report to him. A company can have a problem with relationships that aren't between direct reports.
How can he claim they have poor tech & be secretive at the same time?
Within SDC circle, Hotz's company so far has shown some pretty poor demos. Really poor. I guess the salesmanship will him raise more $$ but its founded in anything but reality
From an accounting standpoint yes, but in reality they paid about $1B. Half was directly for the company, the other half was golden handcuffs. They are choosing to allocate the second to operating expenses and not acquisitions. To the employees of Cruise, still feels like a sweet billion. For once investors got less and employees got more, which is a refreshing change
Do you have inside knowledge we're unaware of? Otherwise it's hard to say "in reality...." $1B is plausible, but much more questionable given this article.
because GM GM is being very narrow in how it describes the deal value. The $581 million (or $600 million, whichever you prefer) is the cash and stock that actually went out the Detroit doors during GM’s second fiscal quarter. Not included were a variety of other things, including cash still being held in escrow, expected earn-out payments, employee retention packages and other expected employee compensation (particularly for those with unvested shares at the time of acquisition).
Yes, but I find a $400M retention package to be highly implausible. We're talking the kind of compensation that Google/Facebook would spend to retain 40 top executives.
Justin Kan [x], who's brother Dan is the co-founder that's unnamed in the picture of the BI article, snapchatted several times the Cruise deal being $1B / unicorn
I consider this article to be pretty poor, if they wanted to actually find the real price, they could've investigated some more instead of trying to infer from the earnings' reports.
In reality was a reference to the difference between why an acquisition price is reported as so high in the press yet appears on the financial statements as much less. This isn't unique to Cruise. Not a slight at this article.
You should try this for admirals !