vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.businessinsider.com/rest-and-vest-millionaire-engineers-who-barely-work-silicon-valley-2017-7) reduced by 96%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; OGs refer to engineers who worked at the company before the IPO. &amp;quot;Their Facebook stock quadruples and they don&amp;#039;t leave. They are really good engineers, really indispensable. And then they start to pull 9-5 days,&amp;quot; this person said.  &gt; Facebook declined to comment but several engineers told us that Facebook has a reputation of requiring long hours from their engineers.  &gt; &amp;quot;Most of my friends at Google work four hours a day. They are senior engineers and don&amp;#039;t work hard. They know the Google system, know when to kick into gear. They are engineers, so they optimized the performance cycles of their own jobs,&amp;quot; one engineer described.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6s69a6/inside_the_world_of_silicon_valleys_coasters_the/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~185383 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **engineer**^#1 **work**^#2 **company**^#3 **vest**^#4 **Google**^#5"
Because growth and earnings are going down exponentially for this company? It will eventually go up (like 3 years+), but if you want to feel more pain first, go ahead. Look at the macroeconomic picture before you praise all mighty of an individual company
I'm personally not sold on Facebook.  It collects vast amounts of data, sure, but to what purpose? I am probably missing something. I presume they intend to monetize this data for marketing activities, but is that really *that* valuable? Large budget marketing teams already have more data about their customers than they can effectively analyze.  Yet, they **still** miss with products. More data is not going to make up for the quality of personnel.
That's really kind of the frustrating and problematic part of it. Their service is impeccable, but it should also cost a lot more than it does, so they have to do Monopoly type tactics to keep it sustainable in the short term. I love Amazon but it's really interesting how everyone (myself included) is just kinda nonchalant about them becoming a monopoly.
That's a big possibility... But they may also be cutting margins and taking advantage of their supply chain and logistics. Given that they're doing this from day 1, it's got to be either cutting margins or taking a short-term loss. If they are using their deep pockets to drive out competition, they should (rightly) attract regulatory attention.
For now Amazon is cool. It's trendy, innovative, smart, convenient, market competitive insert positive note after positive note. For now, Amazon is a trendy super power. Our society that places such a heavy importance on STEM (nothing wrong with that at all) swoons over there grocery ads where people walk into grocery stores and walk out. Oh  Amazon has such a cool factor to it that for now people don't realize how powerful they are getting. The markets they are in, the markets they have plans for. Strangely I don't see Amazon losing their cool factor soon, but they will when people wake up.   We wonder why 6 companies control the media, just a few control everything in the grocery store. 30 years from now, Amazon will be the subject of some tell all uncovering documentary wondering how it all happened.
All of these big social media companies lie to the users, and folks give them a free pass. Google, FB, Twitter, and of course reddit.  Hell... some folks are 'fans'. The Google fan-base is more rabid than Apple crowd.  None of these give a rats ass about any of us as individuals. It's about the bottom line. The buck stops there. If it's not money, it's not in the equation.
Yeah,  but the direct flight to Seattle is too long from the east coast. Southern California has Hollywood, Amazon video studio +1, 3 major ports of America because they are on the top 20 ports of America  (( LA, long Beach and san Diego) (LA is number 1, long Beach is 2, 3 is new York and New Jersey Port authority means MULTIPLE PORTS and 4 is the Seattle and Tacoma authority which also means the same shit.)) Good universities, California tech, ucla and usc to name a few. They are close to companies like boeing, Raytheon and Lockheed,(all withing 50 miles of each other from some reason)East coast is good for finance but is good a headquarters have to mean its close to their other branches? East coast is good only known for their investment banking. I don't know I'm just some drunk guy on the internet. But in my opinion California is the 6th? largest economy in the world and yes, if a yuppie city is willing to give you 5 billion to go there massive amount of resources compared to Memphis, New Jersey and what not just because a hq has to close to what😵? Think farther, go south, Mexico and south America. Hq1 USA and Canada and hq2 south America...
This is a very dumb argument. Apple being worth $700B is only 0.7% of total world econony, with your flawed senseless logic, that is pure shit for a company that's been around for 40+ years.   What's your thought process of Amazon? Oh look they sell everything but those suckers only pull in revenues of $120B out of $110 trillion world econony, what a shitty unsuccessful company!
Both, I own and utalize a ton of Google products but anything outside their advertising or data is lacking long term vision and listless. Reminds of a kid getting bored with their toy in 15 minutes. Makes me fearful for their 20 year+ dominance if their advertisement business slowly gets more competition.  They won't be going anywhere, but I don't think they will continue to take over the world.
&gt;does it have growth prospects?  Exactly this.  There's no reason to believe that Facebook will grow enough to support that price tag.  This is something that any company that becomes large relative to the market has to deal with.  Demand becomes limited by the size of the market.  Even after absorbing/destroying competitors there just isn't that much more room for growth.  Facebook's pricing will hopefully be a bit of a wake-up call.  We don't need another dotcom bust.  Facebook might be very valuable but you're kidding yourself if you think it is more valuable than a company like UTC for example.
Have you seen their latest patent that if you search an item on your phone in a retail store it redirects you to an Amazon page or tells a supervisor to assist you. They are trying to block people from checking prices. Look it up
It’s also not coming out of the revenue from Amazon, ie money that could be used to pay workers. It’s stock that derives it’s value from what other people are willing to pay for it.   The Huffington post piece is ignorant of how the world works.
"You want to be an analyst? Do you mean.. Equity research analyst? Investment banking analyst? Financial analyst? Etc...  The CFA alone isn't going to help you. I don't know why people on this board are obsessed with it. It's something you do while you are in school or once you get a job and looking to move to VP/MD level, not while you're job searching. Relevant experience &gt; CFA, all day every day  There's always some guy who says ""*BECAUSE* of my CFA candidacy...."", well you're in the minority."
[Amazon Balance Sheet](http://markets.ft.com/research/Markets/Tearsheets/Financials?s=AMZX:GER&amp;subview=BalanceSheet)    [Best Buy Balance Sheet](http://markets.ft.com/research/Markets/Tearsheets/Financials?s=BBY:NYQ&amp;subview=BalanceSheet)   Best Buy has one billion in cash.  Amazon has nine.  If Best Buy does lower its retail prices, a sector that demands higher margins to compensate for larger fixed expenses, it's over.  They don't have the cash to pursue that strategy if they wanted to, and it means that they've given up trying to figure out another way to differentiate themselves.    It already is pretty much over.  Amazon could open up pop-up stores around Christmas time with it's top 20 products by margin and volume in each category and effectively end Best Buy.  But they don't really care because Best Buy isn't a competitor to them.
"You could try this experiment: pay for an Ad/banner on Facebook for 1 month. The Ad/banner should link to your ecommerce site. Then see if the Ad/banner does or does not convert into ecommerce orders (""converting"" means that people coming to your eccomerce site from Facebook after having clicked on your Ad/banner really buy something on your site). If it does convert, you will go on paying for Ads/banners and other people will do the same for their sites, so FB might make cash in next years. But if it does NOT convert you and everybody else will soon discover and stop paying for Ads/banners, thus it will be hard for Facebook to make money with Advertising, thus Facebook might be just a big bubble (unless they find other ways of making money). I did the experiment I suggested above and the conversion rate was an absoulte ZERO!!! (Instead Google Adwords converted well for the same site). So IMHO I would stay away from FB. But remember that stock market is emotional (at least on short periods of time), so it might be that even if FB wil never become a cash cow, for the 1st few months people (expecially small investors tempeted by the brand) might go crazy for the stocks and buy buy buy, making the price go up up up. EDIT in reply to some comments below arguing that my answer was boiled down to one single experiment: General Motors said Tuesday that it will stop paid advertising on   Facebook...the social media paid ads simply weren't delivering the   hoped-for buyers... (CNN May/15/2012) A donkey can not fly either when it's me (with a single experiment) trying to make it fly or the entire GM workforce."
Cloud and online are already saturated there is no more significant growth at the top or bottom. Amazon, Google and DO have so much more of this market than MS it just speaks to how big it really is since even such a tiny fraction still looks good on the MS bottom line.    I think they have a guaranteed slow decline into irrelevance just like IBM. Though I think MS will flame out long before IBM does.
That you're incapable of looking at publically available information on a stock ticker in the business subreddit is kinda on you.   I didn't know anytime I stated a known fact I had to google it for everyone too.  And what did the guy who stated the incorrect info cite?  Get on him.   But here you go!  http://www.nasdaq.com/earnings/report/amzn  http://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AMZN/revenue/amazon-inc-revenue-net-income-history  https://www.streetinsider.com/ec_earnings.php?q=amzn
Funny how quickly that happened, huh? It's when you see shit like that, that you look at them and think wow, you really WERE just fucking us, and now you're scurrying around fixing shit because you know your business model can't compete with theirs. Fuckers.
&gt;but taking actions specifically for the purpose of killing off competition is not good because it reduces the pressures on efficiencies.  Only for customers and economy as a whole. Company with monopoly power enjoys monopoly profits.   The business model of  Amazon is pretty clear: Build advantages trough network externalities and large scale. Amazon invests everything into more growth. More revenue and market share means that Amazon can drop it's margins more than competition. That's how Wal-Mart became a giant.   Amazon is internet era logistics and bulk  services company. Whole Foods acquisition is horizontal integration and increases Amazon's economies of scale. Everything will connect  together in distribution network level. http://www.businessinsider.com/amazons-earnings-highlight-expanding-logistics-network-2017-2?utm_source=markets&amp;utm_medium=ingest&amp;r=US&amp;IR=T&amp;IR=T  Amazon is building barriers to entry as fast as it can using:   - demonstration pricing: dropping price very low in a ‘demonstration’ of power and to put pressure on existing or potential rivals. - limit pricing:  setting a price just below the average cost of new entrants  - high set-up costs - exclusive contracts - vertical integration  - horizontal integration
Amazon isn't even remotely near what Microsoft had.  Microsoft had a 95% plus share of the Operating System market. Amazon doesn't even have 1% of total retail sales. This is a preposterous assertion. Total US retail sales were $5 trillion last year. You're seriously claiming Amazon is attempting to monopolize that industry? Amazon had $150 billion in sales last year.   This is the dumbest claim I have literally ever seen in my life.
Now you have contradicted yourself.  You tried to compare half an inflation adjusted wage to Amazon's current offering based on some unknown point in history.  What you are saying is since you were underpaid it is a good trend.  Nearly everybody in America disagrees with you.
Amazon certainly won't have a monopoly. Monopolies can rarely exist without one or two things. Government support or limited geographic area.   Amazon can't kill Walmart so at a minimum we will have a duopoly.  FedEx and UPS will adjust their business models and maybe even merge.   Amazon won't have a monopoly on self driving fleets. Uber and Lyft will increase freight. Google will probably buy an auto manufacturer and have their own fleet.  What we are seeing form are a handful of Titans that will fight this out for a very long time. Oligopoly here we come.
Indeed.  You don't need to know much to know that there is nothing, and I do mean nothing, which will prevent the collapse and abandonment of FB by the majority of its users *as soon as TNBT comes along*.  The same cannot be said of Google. Of which I *do* hold shares.
"I didn't intend to compare them for the purposes of pointing out any similarities.  I just found it interesting that some people thought Google was overvalued and that the company turned out to be a juggernaut.  Facebook perhaps has more serious problems but who knows where the company will be in 8 years.  Perhaps then we'll look back at the criticism and think, ""it should have been obvious that blah blah blah."""
"Excellent sagacious analysis, Whale. I agree with every single thing you have stated; however, I took great heed to one remark you made: Apple ""[is] a great company.""   Apple is NOT a great company. Apple may be worse than Amazon. The only difference between Apple and Amazon is that Apple knows its strength (technology) and does not veer away from it one iota.   Apple has been vying for a stronghold on the technology industry since its inception. Oh yea, another thing that makes Apple a shitty company--keep in mind, I am typing all of this on an Apple phone (the irony)--is the fact that they store a majority of their revenue offshore--in countries that practically have a ZERO tax on money--which has allowed Apple to dodge taxes in the U.S. for years. It's sad that a multi-billion dollar company that operates in the U.S., with $250 billion in cash, dodges paying their fair share of taxes to the U.S. Treasury just because they'll be taxed at 35%.   Could you imagine what would happen to average-Joe citizens like you or me if we avoided paying taxes? HINT: this isn't a trick question."
Don't feel bad man. I have a finance degree and an information systems degree a 3.5 gpa, speak 3 languages, competent in several programming languages, helped run my family business for 3+ years and I had to take a IT internship role at an insurance company through co-op. Did that for 16 months and just sat for CFA L1. All that on my resume I got 0 love during recruitment. Passed up for even Back office positions at banks for kids who have goofy degrees and lower GPAs.  If you're a non-target like me this is how it is. With hard work and intelligence we will get what we want though. I suggest looking into the CFA program.
Why the fuck is everybody angry if corporations want to make money and build better products? It is their fucking purpose and if physical retailers still live in the 20th century it is their fucking fault. It is not like Amazon is the ultimate evil and uses the money to kill kitttens
I’d chalk amazon up to 1) the market giving then a pass on earnings, 2) AWS rising to eat everything else. I didn’t think it could break past 750-800 last year.       Netflix on the other hand...not sure on the value there. Best case scenario they are HBO or all the content providers realize the game sucks and go back? Content is king and everyone is charging more and more for it OR launching their own streaming options. Unlike hbo, I can subscribe for a month and consume all the content I want and then be done. The pro for them is their service is amazing...apps, online, etc. really good experience.
It only changes things if Amazon throttles their speed or charges them a different rate to access AWS in a effort to stifle their competitive chances, which to my knowledge, Amazon doesn't do.   But you know who does behave like that?  The telecom companies that block municipal broadband companies from forming, or startup companies from accessing the fiber networks that they were subsidized with taxpayer money to build.  Oh and they also have documented proof of throttling speeds to streaming services that compete with their broadcasting partners.  THAT is monopolistic behavior and the kind of shit we need to be rallying against and calling for anti trust rulings.  Not Amazon.
/s &gt; These same people would never get admitted to a top 10, no less 25 MBA program. This is an irrelevant point. There are plenty of top 10 and top 25 mba program grad's that wouldn't pass the CFA either. Both emphasize different skillsets. Front office wall st is becoming more and more geared towards MS holders and CFA charters... many MBA's holders and MBA programs lack the quantitative focus to take these roles and are being denied. &gt;One thing I will give you, there are WAY too many MBAs in general (partially because of all the part-time, night-time, executive ones)... But an MBA is very different then a CFA in that its banded by school and category. Absolutely. That reinforces my entire point that MBA's are dime a dozen. What are we arguing about again?... MBA's are very different than a CFA in that even within target schools, they each emphasize on entirely different skills. MIT Finance mba grads are far more likely to possess strong quantitative than say a Harvard MBA. The reason is that the CFA is a standard qualification that focuses entirely on quantitative capacity.... it is like a MS in the sense that its a mile deep and a foot wide whereas MBA's are a foot deep and a mile wide. &gt; Everyone with a CFA has the same CFA; however, a Wharton degrees sure carries a lot more clout than a UMD one... You're right. But a CFA isn't meant to be comparable and interchangeable with a Wharton degree. The CFA's closest comparison is a MS in quantitative/computational finance. So if you're trying to say CFA is less valuable than a MBA it's apples and oranges. You never will see a job require a MBA or CFA... the CFA will always be listed on a job role as ""preferred MS/CFA"". Try comparing CFA against a MS from Columbia or Carnegie Mellon MSCF grad and you might have valid results."
I'm not an expert but I would encourage her to stay focused on the skills necessary to be successful in her role, rather than focusing on just the video game industry. The skills and experiences she develops at Zynga can be used to solve a lot of companies' problems, in video games or other consumer electronic companies.   Edit: in other words, its all going to be OK.
And while Wal-Mart is good at getting stuff into stores, it's hopelessly lost trying figure out [last mile](https://www.datexcorp.com/last-mile-delivery-part-1-omni-channel-retail-affecting-transportation-logistics/) delivery — the final delivery to people's homes. Wal-Mart's method is to get customers to drive to them, or even to get their [employees to drop off orders on their commutes home](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jun/02/walmart-asking-staff-to-deliver-online-orders-on-their-way-home). Amazon has that stuff mastered and is getting better all the time. ---------------- &gt;The only thing Amazon can bring to the equation is a system in which WF suddenly can operate at a loss and Amazon share holders simply don't care, like they haven't cared for the last 20 years amazon has made ""no money"". Whole Foods has been horribly inefficient, especially with regards to how it works with smaller, local suppliers in many different locations. Amazon has long figured out how to efficiently get products from many thousands of small suppliers. --------- Edit: Get a clue, learn English, and learn how to spell ""blatantly"" before you start criticizing others."
The only part that bothers me about google is android. Everything else is pretty diverse and each of those individual products could easily or already do have competitors. Video, email, search, social networking, advertisement and analytics all have alternatives.  Android however gives them immense power over the offerings of many other companies products, but it is pretty damn messy with no simple solutions besides wait and see what happens so far.  Amazon has gotten huge, and while they do amazing logistics, that is almost entirely what they do. Unless im buying straight from manufacturer, I only shop at 3 or 4 sites and 90% of that is amazon. Amazon, Newegg(computer shit), RockAuto(car shit), and monoprice for cables. For now they are king but I doubt it is going to stay like that. Ive noticed some products have higher markups and suppliers are likely raising prices for amazon, but it will be a few more years at least before anyone else might be able to gain traction.
I don't get it either... you need to embrace the change and know that companies are basically amoral entities that will do whatever suits their shareholders currently. the impending automation boom will likely cause unemployment to reach peaks we can't conceive of. Basic income might be a way to counter it but I do worry about the type of unrest that being poor without options will cause if we don't have an answer when those jobs go away.
Also a good point. I think that happens, but given the amount of work available here (bay area) it would still be easier to find another job after layoffs. Also considering the increase in average CEO /executive age in the last 40 years, and the increasing retirement age -higher leveled inside promotions are becoming less frequent. But as to the original comment, years ago he did the cost benefit analysis and chose to stay - seems as valid for me to be doing the same (albeit different conclusion).
"The thing is, most people *don't care*.    They think - for some reason - that Amazon is their ""friend"".    I hear lots of stories about how ""Amazon's customer service is so awesome!""  Well, yeah, because they don't really care all that much about making a buck - and so far look how well it's worked out.  Bezos is worth insane billions.  They're not doing it to make profits, they're doing what they're doing because little Jeffey wants more $$ in his pocket."
What do you actually want to DO?  If you're not going to be a financial analyst, and if you're not willing to commit 10-20 years literally clawing your way up a very narrow ladder with stiff competition, I wouldn't do it.  Go the accounting route, get your MBA and CPA and make it easy on yourself.