Really? The entire area is near a subduction zone capable of producing earthquakes similar to the Good Friday quake that hit Alaska in 1964. These "megathrust" quakes tend to be MORE severe than the strike-slip quakes that occur in California. The last such quake in this area is thought to have occured circa 1700, IIRC, and caused a tsunami that was large enough to kill people in Japan after crossing the Pacific. The same plate interaction is also responsible for volcanism in that area. I don't know about the flood potential that the other guys mentioned. It seems like you can mitigate against that simply by building on high enough ground.
I'd say these places are designed to be cost effective, with risk being only part of the equation. The cost of land, the cost of power, and the cost of insurance all factor in. The odds of a their data center being destroyed by a megathrust quake are probably not that much greater than being destroyed by a strike-slip in the Bay Area, so the cost of insuring against it is probably similar.
A laissez-faire approach was tried first for some of these things. Roads and firestations are not as compelling an example as old-school telecom is. I've seen pictures of telecom and power systems prior to the granting of the Bell monopoly: There were poles with 20 wired cross-members on them. Google around, there must be a picture of it somewhere.
Some things are "natural monopolies", where the entry of multiple players would be so contrary to the general good, that government must step in. Roads, firestations, and telecom infrastructure are all great examples.
Layoff the rest of the people you don't need. Cut unprofitable services. Improve the quality of those services that are profitable. Maintain your R&D division. Come up with some new products.
In other words, turn yourself into a profitable, but smaller company going forward. Why, you might even consider the possibility of being around 20 years from now as an independant entity.
I mean, at this stage, why continue thinking "exit strategy" like a 2-year old startup?
I know, I know. It's an odd idea in hi tech. It seems to work pretty well for the grocer, the tailor, the baker and various other businesses though.
Oh, and especially, please, pretty please? Get rid of the obtrusive 3rd party ads. I block all that crap. If you just put a tasteful, static GIF on your pages, I wouldn't block your ads. Nevermind that though; I've paid for Yahoo services before. Their music service was good before they stopped maintaining it properly. I've never paid Google for anything. So. Yahoo, why don't you start serving customers like you once did? Why don't you place unobtrusive ads like Google does?
Whatever you do, please don't change your old-school Finance pages--your GNUPlot based charts would be irreplaceable. Don't get bought. Please.
...is if they could have convinced all the students at Newcomb Hall Pavillion XI not to "save seats" by placing their bookbags at tables. This resulted in long duration "occupancy" times of seats there, with a portion of the "occupancy" comprising a time where the seat was "occupied" by... a bookbag! I've never actually modeled it, but it seems like when the dining area was particularly crowded, it would suddenly "flash over" and you end up with poor students who refuse to engage in this unethical practice looking around for a seat, being confronted with a seating area of roughly 30% or more "saved" seats. As a result, people are driven towards this low standard of behavior, since nobody wants to move a bookbag and say, "you weren't there, your bookbag didn't look like it needed a seat; but I did".
The whole thing always used to infuriate me; but I was so busy in school there was no time to lobby for any kind of sign to be posted. I wonder how effective such a sign would have been. Ironicly, the honor system at UVa may have contributed to the problem--students were not afraid to leave their bookbags unattended, since stealing was an honor offense. Townies who knew of this behavior would occasionally take advantage of it; either that or somebody who was going to drop out anyway was stealing books and selling them back to the bookstore. However, at least at Newcomb Hall, people felt pretty secure. This was over 15 years ago. I wonder what it's like now. Maybe they finally realized how annoying the "saving seats" thing is when it's applied to a situation where there is "turnover" in the seats. It's not a problem at the movies, where all seats are cleared at the end of the show.
The dude hired an agent within a few days of being mentioned during the campaign. That agent must be giving him some good advice. I mean, who among us could resist the temptation to parlay our 15 minutes into a nice little biz? It's called "cashing in". It's the American dream. I have absolutely no interest in even looking at his web site, but with NATIONAL EXPOSURE plenty of people will. You can't buy that kind of publicity! Talk show circuit, web site, maybe even a show of his own if he can articulate himself. If he plays his cards right, he will never have to unclog another drain.
Compulsory licensing of all patents. All manufacturers of potentially infringing products may not be compelled to pay any more than $fixed_percentage of the sale price of said products. Plaintiffs have 90 days to file a claim against said products. Plaintiffs must divide $fixed_percentage evenly in proportion to the number of patents violated (e.g., company X claims 3 violations, company y claims 2, company X gets 60% of the selltlement).
In the event that there is no revenue (ie, Open Source software not integrated into a pruduct) the patents are thus mooted.
This might be too sweeping for some people. I would actually be happy if we simply instituted compulsory licensing for all patents related to energy. It would take the burden of litigation off entrepreneurs working in the energy space, and lay to rest the tinfoil hat conspiracies regarding Big Oil suppressing the "car that runs on water" and other such nonsense.
In any event, if any aspect of IP law cries out for reform, it's patents. They DIS-incentivize most innovators, the exact opposite of their intent.
I get the impression he didn't make the mistake of coding *beyond* the requirements, which is almost always a waste of time
Apparently, you've never worked with a manager who always says "It only needs to do a handful of operations", "no, it doesn't need to be configurable" and "we only want one view of the data". I soon learned that what he really meant was "it must scale into the thousands", "technicians might want to tweak that" and "the more views we have on the data, the better".
The leader of the Socialist Party in the US was interviewed at some point during the 20th century. He was asked why he had quit running for President. His answer? The two major parties had embraced most of his ideals, so he thought it was no longer necessary. The story may or may not be true; but it certainly rings true. I always remember that when I was learning about these things in my teens, being taught that neither the USSR nor the US is pure in their ideology. There was some minor capitalism allowed in the USSR (private garden plots were allowed, in particular) but the real shocker was being taught that the US actually has a "mixed socialist-capitalist economy". To hear the S-word associated with us just seemed bizarre; but when you broke it down intellectually it was obviously true. We had social security, food stamps, etc. and this was even after the deregulation. Prior to that, the airlines, for example, were regulated down to what kind of food they could serve! I don't think anyone, even Obama, will take us back to that kind of regulation. People wouldn't put up with it, and at that point in history the Right had a point about excessive regulation--it's just that they ran too far with some things.
If you're a good "from scratch" coder, code from scratch. If you're a good "analyze other people's code" coder, reuse their code.
I don't envy the guy who asked this question, regardless of what his capabilities are. He's experiencing the all too common "evolving requirements" problem. Evidently, the framework met requirements when it was chosen. Now it no longer does.
Therefore, his real question is, "how do I throw away this beast with minimal disruption?". I mean, he's either going to do surgery on the beast (reuse) or replace the beast; but one way or another he needs a different animal.
Bottom line? It's a judgement call, and it's based on the talents of you and your team. Me personally, I'd favor a quick-n-dirty full replacement in parallel with the existing code. Spend a few days of intense hacking. I'd know if it's workable after a few days. The mere act of coding the replacement will lead you either to conclude that the problem is not as difficult as you thought, or you will end up splicing the replacement code into the framework and, in essence... reusing!
That's just me though. Then of course there's always the "I got me my 2 years of experience, let's put that on my resume and screw the next coder as I leave for a better job". That option doesn't work so well in a recession.
Yep, back when I was in DC, the local consumer reporter did a test. They put these fancy tools against scissors. The fancy tools offered no advantage. In fact, since they were designed to do "something different", it usually took people longer to open the package. Scissors are hard to start on the edge of the package, but once you break through it's easy.
At any rate, I agree--the special tools are just preying on people's frustration. What's really funny is when the special tool comes packaged in frustrating plastic...
There is only one way to avoid this crime
on
How We Used To Vote
·
· Score: 1
Re:I'll stick with what I have..A bible.
on
D.I.Y. Home Security
·
· Score: 2, Informative
No. AFAIK, it's not restrictions against "machine guns" that make this illegal. It's specific restrictions against "booby traps". If such traps were allowed, just think of the consequences for authorities enterring homes where, for example, elderly have died alone, warranted searches are being performed, gas leaks have been detected, etc.
Food and water are necessary of course. I haven't heard of any recent famines in India. I suspect that "shelter" as defined in India is different though. I bet they don't have car dependant McMansion neighborhoods there. Do you have any idea what a waste of resources that is? Over there, at least for a young person, it's probably socially acceptable and safe to board up in a rooming house on a cot or something. You probably have smaller apartments, denser cities, and I bet their public transportation doesn't suck. That frees up resources for phones. It's all a question of how society decides to allocate resources. Different strokes for different folks.
...by Depression 2.0. Either that, or the CEO of Oracle canceled it. I mean all this CDO, Derivative, dot-com crap finally blew up in a way that really matters. Don't you get i? Fads were just a fad!
Re:Indeed, the record is an order of magnitude...
on
1000-mph Car Planned
·
· Score: 1
Yes of course it's apples and oranges on some level. "Equivalent mpg" is a bit suspect. All other factors aside, I'd like to see what happens if they fuel it with ordinary gasoline and go 35 mph. 35 is waaaaay slower than we're used to driving; but I've heard it's actually the optimal speed for traffic flow. Apparently if you go faster than 35, most drivers will spread out too much (if they don't you'll have an accident and not move any vehicles until it's cleared). Go slower than 35, and you move fewer vehicles for the obvious reason that you are simply going slower.
liberal retirement benefits, and a thrift savings plan (401-K).
Heh-heh. I wonder how that's been working out for them lately.
Indeed, the record is an order of magnitude...
on
1000-mph Car Planned
·
· Score: 1
Indeed, the record is an order of magnitude beyond what he says is impossible. That link is from 2005 too. The current record is probably even better. Of course, as you say, the performance numbers are radically different. Sacrifices were made. At least it's a cool-looking vehicle though. I wish some of the 50-mpg jelly-beans they put on the road looked that good.
I think what we have here is... "a failure to communicate".
The RR vs. Hyundai is too full of apples vs. oranges comparisons. Let's get more abstract.
You're an entrepreneur. Your "pay" is based on stock options. If your company makes high-end luxury products, it will probably never have a huge market capitalization. Assuming you own a fixed percentage of either company, you should prefer the one with the larger market capitalization.
Note, you could poke holes in this argument by stating that in order for the corporation to grow, it has to issue more shares and/or raise more VC funding, thus diluting the founder's stake. However, you didn't mention that.
Your theory about the luxury brands being more stable is intriguing. Can you point to statistics to back it up? Ideally, a fund that maintains a portfolio of luxury brands companies, and its track record would be the ideal way to support or refute that argument. I can understand why you might be willing to pay a premium for stability.
Hermes, a well known-luxury brand in a different industry, has a chart that appears contrarian over most of this year (bear in mind it's quoted in Euros though, so while it was down earlier in the year, it was actually worth a lot more when converted to dollars). Yet, Hermes appears to have pulled back recently just like everything else (once again, the exchange rate distorts our picture). I just pulled this chart up now, and don't follow the high end fashion business (or fashion at all, from an investment or a personal PoV) so I'm reluctant to draw any conclusions here. I just thought you might find it interesting.
Rolls Royce, IIRC, has emerged from bankruptcy at least once. Pulling up the market cap on Hyundai Motor corp. was a bit tricky, since they're a Korean company and don't trade on the US exchange. They appear to have a market cap of roughly $10 Billion. Rolls Royce Motor cars now exists only as a subsidiary of BMW. They were sold for £430m, although that isn't the whole story, since the company was actually split up after a long and troubled past that even included being nationalized by the British government. BMW licensed the artwork necessary to make their car look like a Rolls-Royce--for £40m.
So. I pulled these 5 vs 50% figure out of my posterior. It's actually quite close after you adjust for inflation, exchange rates, and the fact that the markets are down lately.
I don't disagree with you about the mentality of luxury buyers. It's just that it's always a smaller market; just not as small as I thought. The 5 vs. 50 figure was unjust "piling on" because I thought the disparity was HUGE. I should have simply said, "which company would you rather own", since that's the real decision that an entrepreneur is faced with--a similar proportion of ownership in one type of company or another. In that case, it's no contest. It's $10 billion vs. 500 million + inflation and exchange from pounds to dollars. The CEO of Hyundai can probably park a years worth of Rolls Royce production in his driveway, if he is so inclined. Oh... please don't make me check the facts on that one; it might be wrong. I'm just being colorful at this point.
Both trade names have associations outside of automobiles. Hyundai, IIRC, manufactures all kinds of things and is probably one of the largest employers in South Korea, IIRC. At any rate, comparisons between the automotive division associated with one trade name, and the diversified holding company (or other companies in different lines of business carrying the same trade name), are not going to be fair.
I would think that "Publish or Perish" must contribute to a lot of crappy papers getting published. Shovel it out the door, somebody else says it's wrong, write another grant for a study to verify that, shovel that one out the door, rinse, lather, repeat...
In a sense, TV is a dream--it's not real. Maybe the brain has a center for "not real" stuff. We had BW when I was a real small kid. I dream in color though. I think we got rid of the BW when I was no older than 5. It was a Philco, and I have fond memories of refusing to go to bed until the little white dot had completely disappeared. We kept it as a backup set, and even carted it off to our new house in the 80s. Long after it had been relegated to gathering dust in the basement, I pulled it out and experimented with it as a monitor for my C64, just to see the odd combination of a vacuum tube set hooked up to a digital computer. By then, some of the components must have gone out of value. The screen was distorted in one corner. Not gaussed, mind you--distorted. It was like, everything gradually became smaller in one corner. It was still watchable after all those years, and AFAIK would still be watchable today. Digital will kill it next year of course. My parents eventually gave it away or tossed it out (I don't remember which) probably around 1990.
Great resignation. Read the whole thing. The Open Source thing is just one line, and I'd be surprised if the guy would be serious about when he has time (and he does have time) to give it more thought.
No, forget about the Open Source one-liner. It's not a big take-away here. This is a classic "I made my pile, so fuck you" resignation. They come along once in a while in various places. The guy is plainly on a high. Or a low. Or something. Unequivocably, he's feeling a lot of intense emotions; built up over long years of stress and then released in one shining moment of "I don't have to please anybody or anything anymore, here is what I really think" brilliance.
People who read it may tend to have the reaction of "finally, he's saying what I think". They might also think "he's got his stash, now he's nuts". The true corporate drones will be like, "Why is he being that way?" and then they will procede to hunch back over their keyboards and waste their lives.
Slashdot Mirror
Really? The entire area is near a subduction zone capable of producing earthquakes similar to the Good Friday quake that hit Alaska in 1964. These "megathrust" quakes tend to be MORE severe than the strike-slip quakes that occur in California. The last such quake in this area is thought to have occured circa 1700, IIRC, and caused a tsunami that was large enough to kill people in Japan after crossing the Pacific. The same plate interaction is also responsible for volcanism in that area. I don't know about the flood potential that the other guys mentioned. It seems like you can mitigate against that simply by building on high enough ground.
I'd say these places are designed to be cost effective, with risk being only part of the equation. The cost of land, the cost of power, and the cost of insurance all factor in. The odds of a their data center being destroyed by a megathrust quake are probably not that much greater than being destroyed by a strike-slip in the Bay Area, so the cost of insuring against it is probably similar.
A laissez-faire approach was tried first for some of these things. Roads and firestations are not as compelling an example as old-school telecom is. I've seen pictures of telecom and power systems prior to the granting of the Bell monopoly: There were poles with 20 wired cross-members on them. Google around, there must be a picture of it somewhere.
Some things are "natural monopolies", where the entry of multiple players would be so contrary to the general good, that government must step in. Roads, firestations, and telecom infrastructure are all great examples.
Layoff the rest of the people you don't need. Cut unprofitable services. Improve the quality of those services that are profitable. Maintain your R&D division. Come up with some new products.
In other words, turn yourself into a profitable, but smaller company going forward. Why, you might even consider the possibility of being around 20 years from now as an independant entity.
I mean, at this stage, why continue thinking "exit strategy" like a 2-year old startup?
I know, I know. It's an odd idea in hi tech. It seems to work pretty well for the grocer, the tailor, the baker and various other businesses though.
Oh, and especially, please, pretty please? Get rid of the obtrusive 3rd party ads. I block all that crap. If you just put a tasteful, static GIF on your pages, I wouldn't block your ads. Nevermind that though; I've paid for Yahoo services before. Their music service was good before they stopped maintaining it properly. I've never paid Google for anything. So. Yahoo, why don't you start serving customers like you once did? Why don't you place unobtrusive ads like Google does?
Whatever you do, please don't change your old-school Finance pages--your GNUPlot based charts would be irreplaceable. Don't get bought. Please.
...is if they could have convinced all the students at Newcomb Hall Pavillion XI not to "save seats" by placing their bookbags at tables. This resulted in long duration "occupancy" times of seats there, with a portion of the "occupancy" comprising a time where the seat was "occupied" by... a bookbag! I've never actually modeled it, but it seems like when the dining area was particularly crowded, it would suddenly "flash over" and you end up with poor students who refuse to engage in this unethical practice looking around for a seat, being confronted with a seating area of roughly 30% or more "saved" seats. As a result, people are driven towards this low standard of behavior, since nobody wants to move a bookbag and say, "you weren't there, your bookbag didn't look like it needed a seat; but I did".
The whole thing always used to infuriate me; but I was so busy in school there was no time to lobby for any kind of sign to be posted. I wonder how effective such a sign would have been. Ironicly, the honor system at UVa may have contributed to the problem--students were not afraid to leave their bookbags unattended, since stealing was an honor offense. Townies who knew of this behavior would occasionally take advantage of it; either that or somebody who was going to drop out anyway was stealing books and selling them back to the bookstore. However, at least at Newcomb Hall, people felt pretty secure. This was over 15 years ago. I wonder what it's like now. Maybe they finally realized how annoying the "saving seats" thing is when it's applied to a situation where there is "turnover" in the seats. It's not a problem at the movies, where all seats are cleared at the end of the show.
The dude hired an agent within a few days of being mentioned during the campaign. That agent must be giving him some good advice. I mean, who among us could resist the temptation to parlay our 15 minutes into a nice little biz? It's called "cashing in". It's the American dream. I have absolutely no interest in even looking at his web site, but with NATIONAL EXPOSURE plenty of people will. You can't buy that kind of publicity! Talk show circuit, web site, maybe even a show of his own if he can articulate himself. If he plays his cards right, he will never have to unclog another drain.
Compulsory licensing of all patents. All manufacturers of potentially infringing products may not be compelled to pay any more than $fixed_percentage of the sale price of said products. Plaintiffs have 90 days to file a claim against said products. Plaintiffs must divide $fixed_percentage evenly in proportion to the number of patents violated (e.g., company X claims 3 violations, company y claims 2, company X gets 60% of the selltlement).
In the event that there is no revenue (ie, Open Source software not integrated into a pruduct) the patents are thus mooted.
This might be too sweeping for some people. I would actually be happy if we simply instituted compulsory licensing for all patents related to energy. It would take the burden of litigation off entrepreneurs working in the energy space, and lay to rest the tinfoil hat conspiracies regarding Big Oil suppressing the "car that runs on water" and other such nonsense.
In any event, if any aspect of IP law cries out for reform, it's patents. They DIS-incentivize most innovators, the exact opposite of their intent.
Matter? Your God needs matter? What for?
I get the impression he didn't make the mistake of coding *beyond* the requirements, which is almost always a waste of time
Apparently, you've never worked with a manager who always says "It only needs to do a handful of operations", "no, it doesn't need to be configurable" and "we only want one view of the data". I soon learned that what he really meant was "it must scale into the thousands", "technicians might want to tweak that" and "the more views we have on the data, the better".
The leader of the Socialist Party in the US was interviewed at some point during the 20th century. He was asked why he had quit running for President. His answer? The two major parties had embraced most of his ideals, so he thought it was no longer necessary. The story may or may not be true; but it certainly rings true. I always remember that when I was learning about these things in my teens, being taught that neither the USSR nor the US is pure in their ideology. There was some minor capitalism allowed in the USSR (private garden plots were allowed, in particular) but the real shocker was being taught that the US actually has a "mixed socialist-capitalist economy". To hear the S-word associated with us just seemed bizarre; but when you broke it down intellectually it was obviously true. We had social security, food stamps, etc. and this was even after the deregulation. Prior to that, the airlines, for example, were regulated down to what kind of food they could serve! I don't think anyone, even Obama, will take us back to that kind of regulation. People wouldn't put up with it, and at that point in history the Right had a point about excessive regulation--it's just that they ran too far with some things.
If you're a good "from scratch" coder, code from scratch. If you're a good "analyze other people's code" coder, reuse their code.
I don't envy the guy who asked this question, regardless of what his capabilities are. He's experiencing the all too common "evolving requirements" problem. Evidently, the framework met requirements when it was chosen. Now it no longer does.
Therefore, his real question is, "how do I throw away this beast with minimal disruption?". I mean, he's either going to do surgery on the beast (reuse) or replace the beast; but one way or another he needs a different animal.
Bottom line? It's a judgement call, and it's based on the talents of you and your team. Me personally, I'd favor a quick-n-dirty full replacement in parallel with the existing code. Spend a few days of intense hacking. I'd know if it's workable after a few days. The mere act of coding the replacement will lead you either to conclude that the problem is not as difficult as you thought, or you will end up splicing the replacement code into the framework and, in essence... reusing!
That's just me though. Then of course there's always the "I got me my 2 years of experience, let's put that on my resume and screw the next coder as I leave for a better job". That option doesn't work so well in a recession.
Yep, back when I was in DC, the local consumer reporter did a test. They put these fancy tools against scissors. The fancy tools offered no advantage. In fact, since they were designed to do "something different", it usually took people longer to open the package. Scissors are hard to start on the edge of the package, but once you break through it's easy.
At any rate, I agree--the special tools are just preying on people's frustration. What's really funny is when the special tool comes packaged in frustrating plastic...
Vote Naked
No. AFAIK, it's not restrictions against "machine guns" that make this illegal. It's specific restrictions against "booby traps". If such traps were allowed, just think of the consequences for authorities enterring homes where, for example, elderly have died alone, warranted searches are being performed, gas leaks have been detected, etc.
Someone mod this and the parent post Funny, please.
Maybe that means that the economy of Flint, Michigan will finally come back. See. There's an upside.
Food and water are necessary of course. I haven't heard of any recent famines in India. I suspect that "shelter" as defined in India is different though. I bet they don't have car dependant McMansion neighborhoods there. Do you have any idea what a waste of resources that is? Over there, at least for a young person, it's probably socially acceptable and safe to board up in a rooming house on a cot or something. You probably have smaller apartments, denser cities, and I bet their public transportation doesn't suck. That frees up resources for phones. It's all a question of how society decides to allocate resources. Different strokes for different folks.
...by Depression 2.0. Either that, or the CEO of Oracle canceled it. I mean all this CDO, Derivative, dot-com crap finally blew up in a way that really matters. Don't you get i? Fads were just a fad!
Yes of course it's apples and oranges on some level. "Equivalent mpg" is a bit suspect. All other factors aside, I'd like to see what happens if they fuel it with ordinary gasoline and go 35 mph. 35 is waaaaay slower than we're used to driving; but I've heard it's actually the optimal speed for traffic flow. Apparently if you go faster than 35, most drivers will spread out too much (if they don't you'll have an accident and not move any vehicles until it's cleared). Go slower than 35, and you move fewer vehicles for the obvious reason that you are simply going slower.
liberal retirement benefits, and a thrift savings plan (401-K).
Heh-heh. I wonder how that's been working out for them lately.
Indeed, the record is an order of magnitude beyond what he says is impossible. That link is from 2005 too. The current record is probably even better. Of course, as you say, the performance numbers are radically different. Sacrifices were made. At least it's a cool-looking vehicle though. I wish some of the 50-mpg jelly-beans they put on the road looked that good.
I think what we have here is... "a failure to communicate".
The RR vs. Hyundai is too full of apples vs. oranges comparisons. Let's get more abstract.
You're an entrepreneur. Your "pay" is based on stock options. If your company makes high-end luxury products, it will probably never have a huge market capitalization. Assuming you own a fixed percentage of either company, you should prefer the one with the larger market capitalization.
Note, you could poke holes in this argument by stating that in order for the corporation to grow, it has to issue more shares and/or raise more VC funding, thus diluting the founder's stake. However, you didn't mention that.
Your theory about the luxury brands being more stable is intriguing. Can you point to statistics to back it up? Ideally, a fund that maintains a portfolio of luxury brands companies, and its track record would be the ideal way to support or refute that argument. I can understand why you might be willing to pay a premium for stability.
Hermes, a well known-luxury brand in a different industry, has a chart that appears contrarian over most of this year (bear in mind it's quoted in Euros though, so while it was down earlier in the year, it was actually worth a lot more when converted to dollars). Yet, Hermes appears to have pulled back recently just like everything else (once again, the exchange rate distorts our picture). I just pulled this chart up now, and don't follow the high end fashion business (or fashion at all, from an investment or a personal PoV) so I'm reluctant to draw any conclusions here. I just thought you might find it interesting.
Rolls Royce, IIRC, has emerged from bankruptcy at least once. Pulling up the market cap on Hyundai Motor corp. was a bit tricky, since they're a Korean company and don't trade on the US exchange. They appear to have a market cap of roughly $10 Billion. Rolls Royce Motor cars now exists only as a subsidiary of BMW. They were sold for £430m, although that isn't the whole story, since the company was actually split up after a long and troubled past that even included being nationalized by the British government. BMW licensed the artwork necessary to make their car look like a Rolls-Royce--for £40m.
So. I pulled these 5 vs 50% figure out of my posterior. It's actually quite close after you adjust for inflation, exchange rates, and the fact that the markets are down lately.
I don't disagree with you about the mentality of luxury buyers. It's just that it's always a smaller market; just not as small as I thought. The 5 vs. 50 figure was unjust "piling on" because I thought the disparity was HUGE. I should have simply said, "which company would you rather own", since that's the real decision that an entrepreneur is faced with--a similar proportion of ownership in one type of company or another. In that case, it's no contest. It's $10 billion vs. 500 million + inflation and exchange from pounds to dollars. The CEO of Hyundai can probably park a years worth of Rolls Royce production in his driveway, if he is so inclined. Oh... please don't make me check the facts on that one; it might be wrong. I'm just being colorful at this point.
Both trade names have associations outside of automobiles. Hyundai, IIRC, manufactures all kinds of things and is probably one of the largest employers in South Korea, IIRC. At any rate, comparisons between the automotive division associated with one trade name, and the diversified holding company (or other companies in different lines of business carrying the same trade name), are not going to be fair.
I would think that "Publish or Perish" must contribute to a lot of crappy papers getting published. Shovel it out the door, somebody else says it's wrong, write another grant for a study to verify that, shovel that one out the door, rinse, lather, repeat...
In a sense, TV is a dream--it's not real. Maybe the brain has a center for "not real" stuff. We had BW when I was a real small kid. I dream in color though. I think we got rid of the BW when I was no older than 5. It was a Philco, and I have fond memories of refusing to go to bed until the little white dot had completely disappeared. We kept it as a backup set, and even carted it off to our new house in the 80s. Long after it had been relegated to gathering dust in the basement, I pulled it out and experimented with it as a monitor for my C64, just to see the odd combination of a vacuum tube set hooked up to a digital computer. By then, some of the components must have gone out of value. The screen was distorted in one corner. Not gaussed, mind you--distorted. It was like, everything gradually became smaller in one corner. It was still watchable after all those years, and AFAIK would still be watchable today. Digital will kill it next year of course. My parents eventually gave it away or tossed it out (I don't remember which) probably around 1990.
Great resignation. Read the whole thing. The Open Source thing is just one line, and I'd be surprised if the guy would be serious about when he has time (and he does have time) to give it more thought.
No, forget about the Open Source one-liner. It's not a big take-away here. This is a classic "I made my pile, so fuck you" resignation. They come along once in a while in various places. The guy is plainly on a high. Or a low. Or something. Unequivocably, he's feeling a lot of intense emotions; built up over long years of stress and then released in one shining moment of "I don't have to please anybody or anything anymore, here is what I really think" brilliance.
People who read it may tend to have the reaction of "finally, he's saying what I think". They might also think "he's got his stash, now he's nuts". The true corporate drones will be like, "Why is he being that way?" and then they will procede to hunch back over their keyboards and waste their lives.