Assuming that someone willing to spend $400/unit and $6+/serving is going to use the product at least once a day, I'd expect that the continuing profit from pouches would outweigh the one time profit from the machine in a very short time.
Do you think it costs even $2 to pack some fruit into a pouch? That would be over $1400/year in profit.
Substantiate your claim. The health benefit from not dying due to lack of food during the winter far outweighs getting hard arteries from eating cured meat over a lifetime.
The problem with your position is that it pretends that humans haven't processed food and enjoyed well documented health benefits from doing so, for millenia. Cooking, freezing, drying, curing, fermenting and other processing which kills bad things and preserves foods.
Why would he care if people used a machine or their hands to squeeze a $6+ per 8 oz serving juice pack? It's razors and blades - the profit is in the packs.
Greedy parasites? Who are they sucking who doesn't agree with it and like it? Go ahead, create a startup without any financial backers (or venture capitalists, as you call them). At least they're putting their own assets at risk. Do you expect to get support from a shy socialist?
"Y Combinator" "frat-tastic office culture" "aqui-hire" "Where did it all go wrong?"
From the very start. The medium is much more than the message. Really, all that bubble-talk business-speak is meaningless bullshit intended to suck in the naive. Even though Steve Jobs is dead, the San Jose valley continues to live in a reality distortion field. For every Microsoft/Apple/Google/Facebook, there's a zillion dead pets.com sock puppets. Is 17 years really so long that people have forgotten what a tech bubble looks like? Hint:
this is it.
Who really thinks Snapchat, who has never made a dime, whose business it making pictures puke rainbows and is readily replicated, is worth $24,000,000,000 in market cap? Or that Tesla is currently worth more than GM or Ford?
That show "Silicon Valley" sometimes seems more documentary than comedic farce.
I've worked in 3 employee companies, and 30.000+ ones, east, west, and midwest. The only stack ranking, ever, occurred only when there were impending "layoffs." And that ranking was alway done by direct management, and not cliquish peers. Shove your business-talk terminology (really, "Nash equilibrium?" Are you a fcking leach of an MBA, unable to produce value on your own?) where it won't see the sun, because it's part of the toxic culture.
Thanks for proving my point. The system (AI) isn't biased, the expectations of the authors are. They seem to expect to put in real world data and get out data fitting their own worldview, and if it doesn't match they call it bias.
The same happens to people who work in an office. Offices for knowledge workers are mostly a way for lazy managers to make sure you're "working," even if that entails watching Youtube cat videos at your desk. OTOH, someone who's been a successful contributor from a home office has a demonstrated ability to self-motivate without physical oversight. If they work best at 3 AM, and like to sleep during the day, why should it matter?
It's obviously position dependent. An autoworker can't work at home, a salesperson who's making customer calls all day - what does "office" really mean? For knowledge workers, it's mostly dependent on their ability to contribute. Technology provides many ways to collaborate without physical presence.
More likely, they recognize they've found a new target market. Expect a Classic II, which includes a few more games, and sells at twice the price. They're not going to give up all the available profit to scalpers.
Rather than shut it down, Google should have simply changed the response to something on the order of "The Whopper is a big bunch of tasty calories, but doesn't provide good nutrition. If that's what you want, you should consider a burger from McDonald's, Wendy's, Sonic, or some other brand, which although no better nutritionally, isn't trying to play weird games with its advertising."
Slashdot Mirror
Assuming that someone willing to spend $400/unit and $6+/serving is going to use the product at least once a day, I'd expect that the continuing profit from pouches would outweigh the one time profit from the machine in a very short time.
Do you think it costs even $2 to pack some fruit into a pouch? That would be over $1400/year in profit.
Substantiate your claim. The health benefit from not dying due to lack of food during the winter far outweighs getting hard arteries from eating cured meat over a lifetime.
The problem with your position is that it pretends that humans haven't processed food and enjoyed well documented health benefits from doing so, for millenia. Cooking, freezing, drying, curing, fermenting and other processing which kills bad things and preserves foods.
More likely, there's currently a production limit, and they want to ensure that people who bought the $400 machine have packs available.
Why would he care if people used a machine or their hands to squeeze a $6+ per 8 oz serving juice pack? It's razors and blades - the profit is in the packs.
Precisely.
"...more often you include a supervisor on emails to coworkers, the less trusted those coworkers feel..."
It's probable that the author has reversed the causality - it's the less trusted coworkers who more often find bosses cc:'d on emails.
Someone traded 10.0.0.0/8 for it. MIT got a deal, because like /. UIDs, lower numbered ones are better!
They didn't test Soma?
Greedy parasites? Who are they sucking who doesn't agree with it and like it? Go ahead, create a startup without any financial backers (or venture capitalists, as you call them). At least they're putting their own assets at risk. Do you expect to get support from a shy socialist?
"Y Combinator" "frat-tastic office culture" "aqui-hire" "Where did it all go wrong?"
From the very start. The medium is much more than the message. Really, all that bubble-talk business-speak is meaningless bullshit intended to suck in the naive. Even though Steve Jobs is dead, the San Jose valley continues to live in a reality distortion field. For every Microsoft/Apple/Google/Facebook, there's a zillion dead pets.com sock puppets. Is 17 years really so long that people have forgotten what a tech bubble looks like? Hint: this is it.
Who really thinks Snapchat, who has never made a dime, whose business it making pictures puke rainbows and is readily replicated, is worth $24,000,000,000 in market cap? Or that Tesla is currently worth more than GM or Ford?
That show "Silicon Valley" sometimes seems more documentary than comedic farce.
"they will be among giants such as Delta Air Lines and Greyhound but in a more local realm"
Delta filed for bankruptcy once, and Greyhound has gone bankrupt twice. Now, that's an efficient business model to aspire to.
SYM-1, sort of a fancy KIM-1. After that, it was an Apple ][.
I've worked in 3 employee companies, and 30.000+ ones, east, west, and midwest. The only stack ranking, ever, occurred only when there were impending "layoffs." And that ranking was alway done by direct management, and not cliquish peers. Shove your business-talk terminology (really, "Nash equilibrium?" Are you a fcking leach of an MBA, unable to produce value on your own?) where it won't see the sun, because it's part of the toxic culture.
"a lapse that resulted in at least one patient death."
Instead of a letter, they should be prosecuting an exec, and putting them in jail for a long time. That will get their attention.
Thanks for proving my point. The system (AI) isn't biased, the expectations of the authors are. They seem to expect to put in real world data and get out data fitting their own worldview, and if it doesn't match they call it bias.
You're completely and utterly wrong. Bias implies a subjective prejudice. This isn't a case of bias, it's a case of GIGO.
You work in a very toxic environment. I have no desire to work there.
As soon as you start deliberately manipulating the training data, your're introducing your own bias.
Right-handed people are dexterous, lefties are sinister.
Bias does not mean what the authors think it means.
I like Smarties!
The same happens to people who work in an office. Offices for knowledge workers are mostly a way for lazy managers to make sure you're "working," even if that entails watching Youtube cat videos at your desk. OTOH, someone who's been a successful contributor from a home office has a demonstrated ability to self-motivate without physical oversight. If they work best at 3 AM, and like to sleep during the day, why should it matter?
It's obviously position dependent. An autoworker can't work at home, a salesperson who's making customer calls all day - what does "office" really mean? For knowledge workers, it's mostly dependent on their ability to contribute. Technology provides many ways to collaborate without physical presence.
"the country is 1/20th of the population."
It's also less than 1/200th of the area.
More likely, they recognize they've found a new target market. Expect a Classic II, which includes a few more games, and sells at twice the price. They're not going to give up all the available profit to scalpers.
Is that you Sheldon? Your sarcasm detector isn't working well today.
Why would Google beg to get sued by Apple for copying Siri?
Rather than shut it down, Google should have simply changed the response to something on the order of "The Whopper is a big bunch of tasty calories, but doesn't provide good nutrition. If that's what you want, you should consider a burger from McDonald's, Wendy's, Sonic, or some other brand, which although no better nutritionally, isn't trying to play weird games with its advertising."