wyattk

Well stated. Until I saw it, I did not realize how many people went from rich (interpretations vary based on your experience, so "comfortable") suburbs and homes to "good" schools to "good" companies and professions. This is my experience, but that tends to be a common path and results in little diversity of "thought" (meaning ideas and experience).

It's become apparent to me that diversity is an ambiguous terms and its interpretation can vary a lot over many factors and time. I am not discounting any definition of it. When it comes up, it feels like people are on different pages with it. It could more prudent to state the definition when it is said.

So are you saying that non-salary benefits are bullshit?

Besides work flexibility, culture, purpose, and equity, how is a new venture supposed to compete with an entrenched monopolist that is essentially printing money (see: Alphabet)? Sure, equity is a multiplier that can return a huge amount of money with huge risk, but even equity+salary can't come near total comp offered by these juggernauts. I mean, these companies generate mountains of profits after paying crazy salaries and perks.

How can a startup compete for talent against these behemoths?

I get the point you're tryin to make, but, then again, who are we to judge what is and is not worthy, especially this early? A lot of "unworthy" things have been extremely value to us as a society in hindsight, let alone things that have stemmed from them.

> countless B2B products truly worth it?

"B2B" is a very vague and extremely overarching term. Computers, internet, and cell phones were all, at one point, very much "B2B".

> Who could possibly, genuinely want to work at such places?

For starters, I can imagine some people would fancy having a large impact on the world and the subsequent 10-12 figures attached to their name from all the value they created. Microsoft was "B2B", Amazon was an online bookstore (some people would imagine "instant food" in a category close to that), etc. It can be hard for many to see the value of something at its origin and not be able to see how that would shape a society, let alone an exponentially changing one. I think Peter Thiel would call some of these things "secrets".

Look, I don't much care for Facebook as a company or as a product. FAIR is a bit separate and does a lot of pure research. FAIR has put out a lot of good work, tools (it supports PyTorch), and has a lot of good people working there with good intentions.

Not everyone that works for a company that a given person dislikes is "evil" or acting malevolently. No company is homogeneous.

I'm from the rural Midwest. It may seem pedantic, but _no one_ from the Midwest uses a space in the name. That and the spelling errors reinforce that this is just an inflammatory bait comment.

With all due respect, but it seems apparent that you are not familiar with how electric distribution utilities work, especially in a deregulated state like California, how CAISO and its market mechanisms work, or how CPUC works.

If you are a reader that is not well-versed in how the grid works, please disregard the parent's comment.

I work in this space. I view this noisemaking as harmful to the public as they likely do not fully understand how the electricity delivery system (the grid) works, and this only serves to infuriate them and increase distrust.

A related question to the community, if you have ~5 years of experience, is it okay to have a resume that is more than one page? This includes other sections besides experience (i.e. skills).

What are the communities' thoughts on length of resume?

Edit: clarified question.

A piece of advice, two of the words in the large graphic are spelled wrong (explanation and experience).

Jeremy,

I'm having trouble finding the (old) 2017 material. I would like to see it for my reference. Do you know where this is located?

Does anyone have a different link to this? It's insecure and Cisco keeps blocking it, so I can't just proceed from Chrome.

Not quite. We're talking about something that is publicly-owned (roads) to something that is (besides certain municipal projects) privately-owned (last-mile internet access). Compounding this difference, there is monopolistic tendencies that arise with internet as it's rarely competitive. We're talking apples to cows here.

No net benefit of the local population. I forgot to include that one word, net. I admit it does make a difference, but perhaps not to the point where people will fixate on that and ignore everything else.

I understand what you are saying, but these things can be quantified and accounted for in economic models. We can wave hands all day about "I think the economy would do this" but that is often the enemy of applied economics (heavily mathematical) and progress. There is a point when the incentives for the company can turn negative for the community. There is also the consideration in the community that those taxpayers (and voters) do not want to subsidize a massive corporation's shareholders.

Politicians can be aware of this point, but with a massive corporation trying to pit them all against each other for its own gain, competition will erode those profits to or even past the point of neutral cost-benefit to the community. As Peter Thiel likes to point out "Competition is for losers."