boomshucka

7 ms·

1.
by boomshucka 11y ago
Again, a minute to look at their financials. There is a thing called the "cashflow statement". They are not "burning through cash". Operating cashflow is positive. Some quarters their capex is larger than operating cashf
2.
by boomshucka 11y ago
No, I can't. You can go look at the SEC like everyone else who can be bothered to actually have a clue before making comments. This is public information, there is no need to be so lazy as to not even bother looking. Issuing debt does
3.
by boomshucka 11y ago
Massive leverage? Can you not read a balance sheet? They aren't drowning in debt. They have negative net debt.
4.
by boomshucka 11y ago
This is an incredibly stupid analogy. Twitter doesn't give it's users money. Twitter doesn't give it's advertisers money. They run a high gross margin business. Your analogy would be a NEGATIVE gross margin business. The
5.
by boomshucka 11y ago
quarterly results.
6.
by boomshucka 11y ago
You are likely right, it probably isn't clear cut. But if there is a response to his discussion of physics, it should be around physics, not the fact that he is a "doubter". The world would be in an awful place without any &q
7.
by boomshucka 11y ago
(this is not a swipe at poster). This article by Suster is awful. The take down discussed physics, Suster discusses "doubters". The take down did not suggest it wasn't possible to transmit energy through sound waves, simply t
8.
by boomshucka 11y ago
"Modern Portfolio Theory, Efficient Market Theory, and Capital Asset Pricing Model espoused by the world's leading financial economists" is also a fantastic lie. Who are these world leading financial economists? The worlds be
9.
by boomshucka 11y ago
Try 250k and see the responses.
10.
by boomshucka 11y ago
Seriously. Virtually all people complaining about hiring are way off base on compensation. If they were to increase (sometimes they literally need to double) comp, they'd see things get a lot easier.
11.
by boomshucka 11y ago
Yes, it is. You can't just say "I should be able to get x for y". You are in dreamland, pure and simple.
12.
by boomshucka 11y ago
They do some kinda misleading accounting for AWS. They don't count the capital leases as expenses in "operating income" for AWS, it get's counted at the entire company level. So, because they don't have to expense a
13.
by boomshucka 11y ago
"Is this straightforward" can't be figured in 10 minutes for the vast majority of projects. And if you are outsourcing to devs, "has the team done stuff like this" is going to take some time too. 10 minutes simply i
14.
by boomshucka 11y ago
No disrespect meant, but no one with any real software development experience would suggest that a quick formula can be used to estimate the cost/time to develop a given project. Very experienced people spend lots of time up front tryi
15.
by boomshucka 11y ago
I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic... It is pretty absurd to think you are going to get your head around the requirements for a project and come up with a good estimate in 10 minutes. It suggests naivety or dishonesty. You choose.
16.
by boomshucka 11y ago
No, it just gets them started. There is no mention in the piece about this being the way to invest for the long-term, so no one is getting "set" on anything. It doesn't suggest you can "beat the market" or appeal to
17.
by boomshucka 11y ago
I'm really struggling to believe "elite" people from MIT or google are going to be working at a rate where they can make 10-20k per month. It just doesn't really make sense given their other options.
18.
by boomshucka 11y ago
I don't know. Classical mechanics is useful but has proven to be wrong in various places, I don't know how useful string theory is but, at least to my knowledge, it has never been proven wrong. Whether a set of facts adds up to &q
19.
by boomshucka 11y ago
Difficult to see any good developers wanting to be on the supply side of this thing. So, you end up with a bunch of bad developers for hire.
20.
by boomshucka 11y ago
Agreed, the law is less subjective. But that isn't even close to making the law objective.
21.
by boomshucka 11y ago
This is, categorically, not "terrible advice". There might be better things to do, sure. The author is clearly suggesting that it's just a starting point. He/she is clearly not stating that this is a plan for life, or a
22.
by boomshucka 11y ago
Poker is in fact legal in a lot of the US in some form. Whether it be indian casinos or regular casinos or legal poker only rooms, the majority of the population has access (say, within a 1 hr drive) to a public game of poker which is legal
23.
by boomshucka 11y ago
No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that right now, this very second, there are many things which may or may not be legal, it's uncertain. There are circumstances where (usually) companies will get legal advice from a top-tie
24.
by boomshucka 11y ago
Slide 1: Mobile, on demand services. So hot right now.
25.
by boomshucka 11y ago
I'm not even talking about deciding questions of fact. If you take a set of facts as a given, it's still often not clear if something is legal or not. Legislation is often written in broad strokes and it is up to the courts to fil
26.
by boomshucka 11y ago
Given a set of facts, it isn't always clear if something is legal or not. Hence, case law, and appeals and so on. Was obamacare illegal? It wasn't clear. A judgement has been made at this point, but to suggest it was an "obje
27.
by boomshucka 11y ago
Which part isn't clear?
28.
by boomshucka 11y ago
Come on, it was mobile, and on demand services. So hot right now. I'm just surprised they didn't get a late stage round at a $1 billion+ valuation by the sophisticated investing folks at Fidelity etc.
29.
by boomshucka 11y ago
I believe you are confused about the law. Laws are not objective. There are many, many cases brought before the courts where the facts are not in dispute.
30.
by boomshucka 11y ago
It can't be a great idea to aim for the "ideal" situation if it's impossible to do. So much wasted time. Surely it's a better idea to aim for something that one can control, and is obtainable, even if not easy.

More ›