datacruncher01

Google learned that it's exactly not in in their best interest when they lost their court case against Epic a few years ago which is why they are shifting focus away from open source and moving towards Apple's walled garden approach. If they had locked down their platform similarly as Apple did, Epic would probably have lost it's case for similar reasons.

Granted, we know Android would not be where it is today without open source contributions.

It does not help. This is friction imposed to reduce and eliminate sideloading in the name of safety.

I own my device, I choose the software running on it. Create friction points and I will chose another platform to execute my software.

Well it's part of the hiring strategy with tech companies. You hire based on your competitors hiring. The company that can raise to hire more talent is able to get to market on the next big thing before the competition and see stock value rise. But when a down cycle hits, they all drop hiring to match because you're overspending and will see stock prices drop to the competition.

Worked with Malaysian counterparts for a number of years. You have decent talent there but one of the key constraints I've heard from higherups is that the market doesn't have enough workers and a large multinational can saturate the skilled workers you need. So some companies are skipping to go to India instead.

They say that but in my experience, automation leads to more work. If AI does lead to cost savings and improved business, they will have additional demand and need more people though the type of workers they have may change.

And if everyone is dumping employees then we'll have a recession and everyone will blame it on AI and start hiring new talent to pivot for shareholders.

I think eventually the hardware will be so cheap it'll make more sense to use them as solar fences. Reduce the cost to install and maintain by 3-4x easily. Or DIY for practically nothing.

I'd say the simpler answer is likely the right one. Rates being higher means it's more expensive for the business to maintain it's cash flow. Shouldn't be an issue for a company like Google but here's the rub, an exec at one public company sees a peer at another (that's probably doing worse financially) drop headcount and a rise in stock, if that exec doesn't do the same they get perceived as not doing enough and see a dip in stock. So they drop headcount too.

While it sucks for those who get the boot, this has the benefit of raising salaries overall. Because the company that does this usually cuts too much and has to later rehire at market rates which rise over time.

Flow batteries biggest issue has been density. If they have solved it at better cost effectiveness than current EV batteries then it may take off. I doubt the complexity of the electrolyte water solution, pumps, and membranes would really win out against an equivalent electrolyte in a rechargeable battery for car sized volumes.

Where this could be a major use case is large scale grid batteries. That would allow for an effective baseline power store for solar and wind power.

The closet idea was a good one but you need intake and exhaust fans to circulate the air for CO2 and good temperature control. Something like the airframe system would work fine.

I think the easiest explanation is people rightly figured back during the pandemic lockdowns and wfh policies that people had more money than they usually did even in spite of some people losing their jobs. Gov spending was very high to be honest and people suddenly had somewhere between 1k to 2k extra cashflow. That kind of increase leads to every business trying to extract that as fast as they can.

If your business didn't increase their costs during the last three years it's a dying business.

Stack ranking biggest flaw is that it results in managers gaming the system by over hiring to create strategic buffer ftes they can drop if they need to. Which leads to a reoccurring need to use stack ranking and more over hiring.

Nothing, that's why VCs will invest an enormous sum to grow faster than the competition to become the dominate player. Once established and people are used to the product other companies will struggle to compete against it without doing so purely on a cost cutting model that they can't sustain against bigger players.

Problem for many companies is that they are in the middle of a constantly changing tech landscape and become obsoleted fairly quickly or try and use their size to artificially increase margins too much and allow for competitors to eat their market.

The reality is there are very few other types of businesses where you can scale your product so cheaply and still save or increase productivity to justify high prices. Sure music and entertainment can scale but at the end of the day, it's regular people buying the product and there's only so much money there.

It's a temporary issue, rates being what they are means money goes to easier profits. Just like the dotcom bust, it'll eventually make a comeback but good luck figuring out if your company will survive it.

Discord? Pass.

From the article, once the tumor is broken up the immune system begins to clean up the area and is able to learn antigens against the tumor. So your immune system would attack cells that are spreading around the body.