Thats kind of the norm these days for start ups. You are putting every single dime back into dev and your people. We arent profitable but we are going IPO and will have a nice valuation. Tech companies are like that.

It was the norm back when the last tech bubble happened to. Doesn't make it a right decision. Same thing with the housing bubble.

It was the norm back when the last tech bubble happened to. Doesn't make it a right decision. Same thing with the housing bubble.

It was the norm back then to value companies based on an idea with no execution. Nowadays you have to at least have 100 mil in revenue in my industry to think about IPO. It takes a lot of success to reach 100 mil in annual revenue.

 

Thats the main difference I see. Idea companies arent getting valued at billions of dollars.

It seems to me that cloud storage should have wonderfully high margins if you want it to

How and Why? I think some people are missing on the concept that there are minimal barriers to entry in the space. You charge a lot and have fat margins and people will enter the market relatively easily. I agree that the marketplace for cloud is pretty big, but the ability to make fat profits and support the P/E ratios and multiples that this stuff is getting traded at is impossible. You also have companies that have major concerns still about the overall security of the cloud. I won't go into details about it, but it is a real issue at some very very large companies.

It was the norm back then to value companies based on an idea with no execution. Nowadays you have to at least have 100 mil in revenue in my industry to think about IPO. It takes a lot of success to reach 100 mil in annual revenue.

 

Thats the main difference I see. Idea companies arent getting valued at billions of dollars.

 

Snapchat had 0 annual revenue when they were offered 3-4 billion in cash.

It was the norm back then to value companies based on an idea with no execution. Nowadays you have to at least have 100 mil in revenue in my industry to think about IPO. It takes a lot of success to reach 100 mil in annual revenue.

 

Thats the main difference I see. Idea companies arent getting valued at billions of dollars.

And revenue means zilch without ability to have margins and actually make sustainable profits. Look at what companies would have to actually do from an overall performance perspective to sensibly be worth what the multiples are, etc. It is impossible. Maybe one of them pans out and becomes some huge thing, the rest will come crashing back down to reality. Again, I'm not saying they will be bad companies.....no no no. A lot of these are very good, sound companies, what they aren't are 20B companies and companies that are going to become mainstays on the fortune 100 lists, fortune 500 lists, etc.

The point that needs to be discussed is we are creating highly valued companies with very small work forces. That is a huge shift from huge companies = huge employers. That will produce a shift in how our society works. An optimist may suggest a 30 hour work week could be at hand with people job sharing. The pessimist could argue that huge unemployment will mean a global depression on a scale never seen before. The gulf between have and have nots will be huge.

And revenue means zilch without ability to have margins and actually make sustainable profits. Look at what companies would have to actually do from an overall performance perspective to sensibly be worth what the multiples are, etc. It is impossible. Maybe one of them pans out and becomes some huge thing, the rest will come crashing back down to reality. Again, I'm not saying they will be bad companies.....no no no. A lot of these are very good, sound companies, what they aren't are 20B companies and companies that are going to become mainstays on the fortune 100 lists, fortune 500 lists, etc.

I agree with you there. Lets just hope we get up to the 100 bucks workday is trading at so I can pay off my mortgage and then some.

The point that needs to be discussed is we are creating highly valued companies with very small work forces. That is a huge shift from huge companies = huge employers. That will produce a shift in how our society works. An optimist may suggest a 30 hour work week could be at hand with people job sharing. The pessimist could argue that huge unemployment will mean a global depression on a scale never seen before. The gulf between have and have nots will be huge.

You might like Tyler cowen's "average is over"

The point that needs to be discussed is we are creating highly valued companies with very small work forces. That is a huge shift from huge companies = huge employers. That will produce a shift in how our society works. An optimist may suggest a 30 hour work week could be at hand with people job sharing. The pessimist could argue that huge unemployment will mean a global depression on a scale never seen before. The gulf between have and have nots will be huge.

 

Fantastic point, Tex...something I hadn't really thought of.

 

The problem is this house of cards is built upon the have-nots having enough to spend on entertainment, clothing, housing, food, etc...and the second they don't the house will collapse. The haves will slowly start becoming have-nots when their money runs dry (as they'd have no new money coming in).

 

It's a delicate balance, and they need to make sure their greed doesn't blind them from seeing that.

Hiding my TV wires this week in my wall now that I have the proper tools. Not using a wire pull since I should be able to drop them straight down. WE'll see.

This is cool:

 

http://elitedaily.com/news/technology/this...der-90-minutes/

This is cool:

 

http://elitedaily.com/news/technology/this...der-90-minutes/

Nice, came here just to post the same link. Pretty crazy stuff.

I wonder how much you actually retain and comprehend that way. Depending on what you're reading, reading is more than just plowing through words to finish a plot. With some authors, how they're using language and the pacing is central to the novel. Authors like Faulkner would be completely ruined by this.

 

I could imagine the best uses would be for reading through textbooks, history books, etc. But think about reading something like Game of Thrones--you're not going to have any time to pause and think about what Winterfell or The Wall actually looks like when you're flying through the story so fast.

I wonder how much you actually retain and comprehend that way. Depending on what you're reading, reading is more than just plowing through words to finish a plot. With some authors, how they're using language and the pacing is central to the novel. Authors like Faulkner would be completely ruined by this.

 

I could imagine the best uses would be for reading through textbooks, history books, etc. But think about reading something like Game of Thrones--you're not going to have any time to pause and think about what Winterfell or The Wall actually looks like when you're flying through the story so fast.

 

I'd hope people would take more time to reflect on their textbooks as well - the problem isn't the reading speed so much as the vanishing text

I wonder how much you actually retain and comprehend that way. Depending on what you're reading, reading is more than just plowing through words to finish a plot. With some authors, how they're using language and the pacing is central to the novel. Authors like Faulkner would be completely ruined by this.

 

I could imagine the best uses would be for reading through textbooks, history books, etc. But think about reading something like Game of Thrones--you're not going to have any time to pause and think about what Winterfell or The Wall actually looks like when you're flying through the story so fast.

Yeah, I agree...not a huge fan of this.

 

Yeah, I agree...not a huge fan of this.

I'm already a very fast reader by nature, but I like taking the time to read a novel. I usually read it several times to experience it in different ways. I cant see how its helpful for those kinds of books.

Ok, here is a problem my brother and his fiance are having at the gym. Him and I spent hours trying to find a good solution that wouldn't require buying anything else, and we've hit a wall. Any ideas would be welcomed....

 

They want to both be able to listen to the same music, at the same time while they work out. There are WiFi apps that do this, but the WiFi at the gym sucks and it can't hold a connection for even 1 song. They also do not get data service in the gym either, so having them both simply listening to the same radio station on TuneIn or something will not work.

 

The only idea we've come up with is bluetooth. However, a phone can not output music to 2 different bluetooth devices at the same time. It can connect to 2 devices at once, but only one of them can receive music. We've also yet to find an app that will allow 1 bluetooth device to receive music while a headphone jack is plugged in. It seems to only allow audio out of 1 source at a time.

 

There seems to only be 1 app we've found that allows people to listen to the same music on different phones over bluetooth, but the app absolutely sucks. One device will lag behind on the music, or it will lose connection, or it even was chopping back and forth between 3 different songs. It was garbage. How NO ONE ELSE has made a similar app (that we know of) is behind comprehension. Usually you can find at least half a dozen apps that all do the same thing.

 

Anyone got any ideas?

 

So far the only idea I've come up with is to use a 3.5mm jack splitter, with regular headphones plugged in to one side, and a bluetooth headphone plugged in to the other one. But that would require one of them to go out and buy a pair of bluetooth headphones. That may be the end result of all this, but we just can't believe there hasn't been an easier way we've come across yet.

 

PS: They both have Android phones.

...why?

...why?

I was gonna ask this but didnt want to come off as an asshole. This just seems like creating work for yourself for the sake of doing it. Whats the appeal of listening to the same exact music at the same time? Also, why does it have to be streamed to both of them? Couldnt they just create the exact same "gym" playlists and start them at the same time before they start working out?

Yeah, I mean I'm not against trying to do it if you think there is some value in doing so...but there's way too much limitation when you can't even share over wi-fi. Getting new headphones seems like the thing

...why?

 

Ever heard of synchronized weight lifting?

I was gonna ask this but didnt want to come off as an asshole. This just seems like creating work for yourself for the sake of doing it. Whats the appeal of listening to the same exact music at the same time? Also, why does it have to be streamed to both of them? Couldnt they just create the exact same "gym" playlists and start them at the same time before they start working out?

 

I don't know, I guess they listen to "pump up music" or something and want to be in the zone together, I don't know, it's not my scene.

 

Yes, the playlist and music thing at the same time was suggested by me, but I guess she doesn't have much room on her phone. Probably enough for like 150 songs though, so they could swap out the music every week or whatever I guess.

 

It seems like entirely too much work, which is why I was hoping someone knew of an easy solution I could relay to him, but I'm trying to help him if I can.

Sounds like a high maintenance broad.

Sounds like a high maintenance broad.

 

Well my brother is a guy...soo...

They can just take my money now...

Google reveals Android Wear, an operating system for smartwatches

 

Motorola's new Android Wear smartwatch: Moto 360

 

LG G Watch to launch next quarter with Android Wear