JCW2001

Most companies are not successful. That's all you need to know.

Precisely.

Oh yes, I tell you're a real market analyst. SpaceX is exactly like every IPO ever. Except actually it's unlike just about every IPO there has ever been for so many reasons: The tiny float, special treatment, the intense lockups, valuation at 100x its revenue. No IPO has ever been like this.

"Cost of revenue" isn't the entire cost of running the company, (ie R&D, operations, sales, marketing, etc). It's just a cost they've associated with revenue IN ADDITION to the other costs I mentioned.

HSBC say they need to turn a 13b revenue to 200b by 2030 AND also find another 204b, in order to become profitable.

The numbers here are staggering...

Oracle spending ~$340 billion to build infrastructure that generates ~$75 billion annually, financed almost entirely with off-balance-sheet debt, while its free cash flow is negative $24.7 billion.

Yikes.

Ha. Try again

Amazon just did something unprecedented: they're forcing a 90-day safety reset across 335 critical systems after their AI coding tool caused catastrophic outages. The March 5th incident alone lost 6.3 million orders and triggered 21,716 peak Downdetector reports.

Those who think Gary Marcus, Ed Zitron and Yann LeCunn are wrong, and believe in AI: How do you reconcile things when AI thinks the market is highly likely to collapse?

Quote: "The entire system only works if AI revenue grows fast enough to outrun the obsolescence treadmill. For that to happen, Microsoft would need approximately $130 billion per year in new AI revenue, Google $100 billion, Amazon $120 billion, and Meta $70 billion. Against a current reality of $18 billion in total industry AI revenue and zero profits, that gap is not a rounding error. It is the entire bet."

Amazon sells all kinds of crap. I doubt there's any reason they wouldn't stock it.

In practice this simply doesn’t pan out. There are many many terrible freelancers out there. And without someone technical in-house vetting their work, you’ll have no choice but to judge their based on their output. This is a huge problem.

Software needs to be designed with an understanding of the business needs and goals. You need someone who understands how to keep the software well designed (ie. Easy to debug, update and extend in the future).

Judging solely as a user of the software gives you no insight into whether or not a plate of spaghetti code could be holding behind the scenes.

Good code has two traits: It does the job it was designed to do. It is easy to update and maintain.

Everything else you read online is nonsense. And you need someone trusted inside your company to ensure the second trait is being adhered to.

"Engineering Jeopardy" -- perfect summation! And good point about companies that are very one-sided in their interview process. What message are YOU sending to the candidate by drilling them like this, for example?