It seems likely the people holding at least 10,000 shares are former executives who chose to exercise their stock options within the 30 days allowed by Uber
Probably not. In the very early days of a startup, it is quite common for the first developers to get thousands of shares, at a very low strike price. I have heard of regular developers at my company that have hundreds of thousands of shares, at a sub-dollar strike price. Those people are given a very attractive stock offering because they are taking a large risk that they might lose their job if the company folds, so the company rewards them with more options. After a company has been in business, and proven to be successful, then the number of shares offered starts to drop off significantly.
When you get stock options, you get X shares at Y strike price, with Z vesting period.
Lets say you get 10,000 shares, at a strike price of $10 a share, with a 4 year vesting period.
Let's assume you worked there 4 years, so all of the shares are vested. If you want to "exercise" the shares, you have 2 options:
1) Buy the options with cash ($10 per share x 10,000 shares = $100,000).
2) If the company is publicly traded, you can also do a "same-day-sale". If the public price is higher than your strike price (lets say $20), you "buy" the shares at $10, then sell them on the open market at $20, and you pocket the difference, so you would make $100,000 (minus taxes).
Once you leave a company, all un-exercised options are forfeited after a time (90 days for example). For a private stock, you cannot sell them on the open market, so you only have the first option to buy them with cash. You now own all of those shares, but you cannot sell them publicly, so you have to hold onto them hoping that the company goes IPO, or an investor wants to buy them, like SoftBank.
Why do you think you need to go through a recruiter?
The recruiters are not working to find you (the job seeker) with a job. They are working for the company to fill the position. If a company only relies on people knowing about the company and applying, then they will never fill positions. The recruiters are the ones that are scouring all of the job websites and LinkedIn trying to actively find people to fill the positions.
In my experience (looking for candidates to fill positions), recruiters are not efficient at telling whether a candidate is bull-shitting them in the phone screening. I have seen many candidates that passed the recruiter's phone screen, but were vastly unqualified to do the job they were applying for.
When gold was discovered in California, a few were fortunate enough to just pick up some nuggets off the ground, with very little effort.
Its funny that you mention that. During the gold rush, the people that made the most money were the people selling the shovels and pick-axes, not the people mining the gold.
The third option is he is wrong, and mankind lives for another 100,000 years, and he is only remembered as the old deranged scientist with the wacky and false predictions.
Employers like hiring unemployed people because they have more leverage. If you don't have a job, you can't negotiate a higher salary since you are not leaving your current job. If you are unemployed because of a layoff, then that doesn't matter to a hiring company because they are still getting a skilled worker, but at a lower salary.
I agree. Everyone who loses a job should go into a registry and the number of H1-B offerings reduced by that number
That would only help if the laid off people were replaced by H1-B workers. As TFA says, "Some of the jobs will be relocated to Bangalore, India", so those do not require visas.
If they didn't need those skills then yeah, I'd tell them to replace me with someone cheaper that can do the things they need.
Your boss wants you working on the things that only you can do, not working on the things that any number of people can do just as well for a much lower pay.
I'm using a hand-me down phone from my son and paying 12$ a month for service.
Then that probably makes you not a millennial, and not relevant to the conversation? I think that is GP's point. The younger generation is spending their money on frivolous things instead of saving for the future, while the "older" generations are taking measures to cut costs and live cheaper.
My parents helped me with my first down payment. I will be helping my kids.
This is how people you fight poverty. Maintain the family unit, help your children to become more successful than yourself.
This is also how you teach your kids to be lazy and not work for anything. If every young adult knew that their parents were going to help them get into a house, then what incentive is there for them to save their own money?
My ticket is not going to make a dent in your gross revenue.
That is the same type of thinking that a lot of people have about voting too. "What difference does my one vote make?" If more people voted, we might have a different president right now.
And every job I've had beyond the first out of college has been through a recruiter (and they've all been excellent jobs, on both sides of the pond).
I had a recruiter help me get into a previous job. They were very persistent in contacting the employer to make sure that they were moving forward, and they were a huge help in getting me the job. That being said, that same recruiter was contacting me a year later asking if I was interested in another job at a different company...
thank you for making my point. YOU the parent are in charge. if YOU the parent let your child on facebook, or anywhere else, thats on you. no one else.
If the girl's parents had not allowed her to create a Facebook account, would this not have happened? No, it would still have happened because the video was posted by someone else, not the girl.
Unless they take down the network, e.g. running a rogue DHCP server.
Put the lab in a separate network, where this would not be an issue.
Or they use it to hack other systems on the network
Block access from the lab to the rest of the network, and/or get a separate DSL/cable internet for just the lab.
password-sniffing the other student's credentials when they log in from their VMs.
Use SSH for remote logins, and this will not be an issue. Even if a student does guess another student's VM account password, all they can do is screw up (or copy) someone else's work
So, it's not blackmail if I say "give me $5000, or I'll ask your wife to help my investigation into who the person (who looks like you) with the hooker is in these photos."?
"I'm investigating on behalf of my client for the non-payment for the consulting services rendered by one of his employees. That employee is pictured here, wearing the miniskirt and fishnet stockings. The payment owed to my client was $5000. If you make this payment to my client, then I will drop this investigation."
Car analogy - what solution is preferable for someone to learn driving: use a second-hand car or rent a car by the day?
The better car analogy is the guy who likes to lease a new car every 3 years instead of buying one. You always get to have a new car, and there are rarely ever maintenance costs. The same would probably be true for the software subscription where you will automatically get the newest upgrades for free as part of the subscription.
20GB is about 20 minutes of HD footage. Even for stills that's only a few hundred images if you are working in RAW. Can't imagine Adobe exects anyone to use it other than as a demo.
Not to mention the time it would take to upload/download 20GB of data to the cloud. This will also wreak havoc on people with ISPs that have monthly bandwidth caps.
Yes if only there were some sort of Rich Site Summary that could be published by websites
I have many times subscribed to website newsletters and RSS feeds, but as the parent stated, I usually say "eh, I'll read that later" and often times never get around to it. Since it is digital, and takes up an insignificant space on my computer or gmail account, I don't care if it goes unread.
With printed magazines, I see it sitting on the table every time I walk by, and am constantly asked by my wife to read the magazine so she can throw it out, so I tend to read them sooner. I also like to read them while taking my daily #2, and to me, reading a tablet while on the john just seems wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
the current administration
What exactly have they done that another administration wouldn't have done?
How many former presidents have openly insulted the North Korean leader?
It seems likely the people holding at least 10,000 shares are former executives who chose to exercise their stock options within the 30 days allowed by Uber
Probably not. In the very early days of a startup, it is quite common for the first developers to get thousands of shares, at a very low strike price. I have heard of regular developers at my company that have hundreds of thousands of shares, at a sub-dollar strike price. Those people are given a very attractive stock offering because they are taking a large risk that they might lose their job if the company folds, so the company rewards them with more options. After a company has been in business, and proven to be successful, then the number of shares offered starts to drop off significantly.
When you get stock options, you get X shares at Y strike price, with Z vesting period.
Lets say you get 10,000 shares, at a strike price of $10 a share, with a 4 year vesting period.
Let's assume you worked there 4 years, so all of the shares are vested. If you want to "exercise" the shares, you have 2 options:
1) Buy the options with cash ($10 per share x 10,000 shares = $100,000).
2) If the company is publicly traded, you can also do a "same-day-sale". If the public price is higher than your strike price (lets say $20), you "buy" the shares at $10, then sell them on the open market at $20, and you pocket the difference, so you would make $100,000 (minus taxes).
Once you leave a company, all un-exercised options are forfeited after a time (90 days for example). For a private stock, you cannot sell them on the open market, so you only have the first option to buy them with cash. You now own all of those shares, but you cannot sell them publicly, so you have to hold onto them hoping that the company goes IPO, or an investor wants to buy them, like SoftBank.
It's psychological.
Nope, that's just all in your head.
Isn't that what psychological means???
Good thing you can always go back to Firefox 56.
Why do you think you need to go through a recruiter?
The recruiters are not working to find you (the job seeker) with a job. They are working for the company to fill the position. If a company only relies on people knowing about the company and applying, then they will never fill positions. The recruiters are the ones that are scouring all of the job websites and LinkedIn trying to actively find people to fill the positions.
In my experience (looking for candidates to fill positions), recruiters are not efficient at telling whether a candidate is bull-shitting them in the phone screening. I have seen many candidates that passed the recruiter's phone screen, but were vastly unqualified to do the job they were applying for.
Never put a small-minded man in a position of power.
Then there would never be any men in a position of power.
When gold was discovered in California, a few were fortunate enough to just pick up some nuggets off the ground, with very little effort.
Its funny that you mention that. During the gold rush, the people that made the most money were the people selling the shovels and pick-axes, not the people mining the gold.
Bitcoin exchanges == shovel/pick-axe salesmen.
The third option is he is wrong, and mankind lives for another 100,000 years, and he is only remembered as the old deranged scientist with the wacky and false predictions.
Then you don't get your severance check.
Employers do not like hiring unemployed people.
Employers like hiring unemployed people because they have more leverage. If you don't have a job, you can't negotiate a higher salary since you are not leaving your current job. If you are unemployed because of a layoff, then that doesn't matter to a hiring company because they are still getting a skilled worker, but at a lower salary.
I agree. Everyone who loses a job should go into a registry and the number of H1-B offerings reduced by that number
That would only help if the laid off people were replaced by H1-B workers. As TFA says, "Some of the jobs will be relocated to Bangalore, India", so those do not require visas.
If they didn't need those skills then yeah, I'd tell them to replace me with someone cheaper that can do the things they need.
Your boss wants you working on the things that only you can do, not working on the things that any number of people can do just as well for a much lower pay.
I'm using a hand-me down phone from my son and paying 12$ a month for service.
Then that probably makes you not a millennial, and not relevant to the conversation? I think that is GP's point. The younger generation is spending their money on frivolous things instead of saving for the future, while the "older" generations are taking measures to cut costs and live cheaper.
Obamacare (soon will be if Trump gets his way).
My parents helped me with my first down payment. I will be helping my kids.
This is how people you fight poverty. Maintain the family unit, help your children to become more successful than yourself.
This is also how you teach your kids to be lazy and not work for anything. If every young adult knew that their parents were going to help them get into a house, then what incentive is there for them to save their own money?
My ticket is not going to make a dent in your gross revenue.
That is the same type of thinking that a lot of people have about voting too. "What difference does my one vote make?" If more people voted, we might have a different president right now.
And every job I've had beyond the first out of college has been through a recruiter (and they've all been excellent jobs, on both sides of the pond).
I had a recruiter help me get into a previous job. They were very persistent in contacting the employer to make sure that they were moving forward, and they were a huge help in getting me the job. That being said, that same recruiter was contacting me a year later asking if I was interested in another job at a different company...
thank you for making my point. YOU the parent are in charge. if YOU the parent let your child on facebook, or anywhere else, thats on you. no one else.
If the girl's parents had not allowed her to create a Facebook account, would this not have happened? No, it would still have happened because the video was posted by someone else, not the girl.
Unless they take down the network, e.g. running a rogue DHCP server.
Put the lab in a separate network, where this would not be an issue.
Or they use it to hack other systems on the network
Block access from the lab to the rest of the network, and/or get a separate DSL/cable internet for just the lab.
password-sniffing the other student's credentials when they log in from their VMs.
Use SSH for remote logins, and this will not be an issue. Even if a student does guess another student's VM account password, all they can do is screw up (or copy) someone else's work
So, it's not blackmail if I say "give me $5000, or I'll ask your wife to help my investigation into who the person (who looks like you) with the hooker is in these photos."?
"I'm investigating on behalf of my client for the non-payment for the consulting services rendered by one of his employees. That employee is pictured here, wearing the miniskirt and fishnet stockings. The payment owed to my client was $5000. If you make this payment to my client, then I will drop this investigation."
Car analogy - what solution is preferable for someone to learn driving: use a second-hand car or rent a car by the day?
The better car analogy is the guy who likes to lease a new car every 3 years instead of buying one. You always get to have a new car, and there are rarely ever maintenance costs. The same would probably be true for the software subscription where you will automatically get the newest upgrades for free as part of the subscription.
20GB is about 20 minutes of HD footage. Even for stills that's only a few hundred images if you are working in RAW. Can't imagine Adobe exects anyone to use it other than as a demo.
Not to mention the time it would take to upload/download 20GB of data to the cloud. This will also wreak havoc on people with ISPs that have monthly bandwidth caps.
Sounds like Sweden would be a great place to plop out some triplets.
I'm pretty sure it is per pregnancy, not per child.
Yes if only there were some sort of Rich Site Summary that could be published by websites
I have many times subscribed to website newsletters and RSS feeds, but as the parent stated, I usually say "eh, I'll read that later" and often times never get around to it. Since it is digital, and takes up an insignificant space on my computer or gmail account, I don't care if it goes unread. With printed magazines, I see it sitting on the table every time I walk by, and am constantly asked by my wife to read the magazine so she can throw it out, so I tend to read them sooner. I also like to read them while taking my daily #2, and to me, reading a tablet while on the john just seems wrong.