Personally, I think this stuff is great. It eliminates a lot of extra communication regarding whether someone has received a piece of information or not.
That said, I wonder at what point is a post considered "seen".
Some of the issues that have come to light on HN have been genuine, but in this case I feel like this guy has spent more time complaining than he did participating in the contest... They scammed you out of what? 5, maybe 10, minutes of your time?
I read it as meaning the 196 million came from a combination of Sequoia Capital, General Catalyst Partners and Accel Partners, so I think they are still making money.
>But make no mistake: this is bad for Facebook. Sure some investors, Zuck and (maybe?) some employees made a few more dollars but Facebook doesn't need the money and neither do most of the investors. But that's incredibly shortsighted.
>Facebook's ability to retain and attract talent and make stock-based acquisitions is in large part determined by the health and outlook of their stock. If they'd IPOed for $20-25 and jumped to $30 then they would have a lot of momentum behind them.
Why do you think the momentum of their stock has an effect on facebook's ability to attract talent? That's certainly not something I'm looking at (future stock price, yes; current momentum, no). Facebook's stock performance thus far has not changed my view of the potential future success of the company, and I think anyone who has actually done their homework regarding the Facebook valuation would feel the same way.
Option based compensation usually has a strike price at the value of the company around the point of hiring. Options are more volatile than stock. If the share price drops further, the options would be worthless. As the share price rises, the option value rises even faster.
To get and keep talent you need not just a good work environment but cold, hard cash. Paying employees with stock options and grants on a stock on the way up is a very efficient way to encourage people to work for you or to stay working for you. You can also pay people with actual cash, but that's significantly more expensive to match the same level of reward. People who worked through the elbow at Microsoft, Google, Amazon, etc. became millionaires. And there are plenty more elbows out there for the taking in silicon valley, in new york, and elsewhere. It can be hard to compete for and retain employees who are talented enough to earn their millions by seeking out some other company. This is a huge problem at Microsoft, for example, where the stock has been flat for a decade.
Certainly there are many good reasons to work at facebook, but how many of those reasons can make up for missing out on millions of dollars? This is all the more relevant right now because so many of the early employees have gotten their millions through the IPO, and that has all the makings of creating a cultural divide in the company between those who got theirs and those who haven't, and won't.
Am I missing something? What exactly did Facebook do wrong? Seems like the bankers were the ones that made the mistakes when it comes to the facebook IPO. Facebook made out like a bandit. If the price tanks after IPO, it's not Facebook that is taking a hit, it is the institutional buyers that were suckered into overpaying...
Betting one's retirement on a single security seems like a bad strategy regardless of how successful it's likely to be. I'm hoping the title is just hyperbole.
I read the "methods" section of the study, and saw no reference to controlling for occupation nor socioeconomic status (as opposed to marital status, self-reported health, and other things that are listed).
However, I only read it briefly, so I may have missed something.
Read the article again, its not making the passwords case insensitive, merely allowing you to invert the case. i.e. if your password was "aSdf" neither "ASDF" nor "asdf" would work.
Well I feel dumb, sorry. I thought he meant original casing + all lowercase version + all uppercase version were all acceptable (which isn't the same as case insensitive but for the purposes of cracking it is just as bad).
If you don't use Windows you definitely shouldn't feel dumb: if caps lock is enabled on Windows shift will cause you to type a lower case letter, thus inverting what you intended to type rather than uppercasing everything.
I was confused until I realized the caps lock case only applies to Windows users.
I've been using OSX as my primary OS for about a year (other than using Linux exclusively on every machine I SSH into for dev), but I just found out from your post that caps lock + shift doesn't make things lowercase on Mac. So, nope, I have no excuses :P
His point isn't that parents should follow the box ratings, its that parents should be proactive in choosing the content that they expose their children to. Especially if they are going to complain about it later.
That said, I wonder at what point is a post considered "seen".