But many countries have anti-trust regulations that take effect once competition is reduced to a certain level.
If a company like Uber can be divided into multiple Ubers that have to compete with each other, then the over-investment by venture capitalists can still be turned into a societal win.
> why wouldn’t one of seven employees at the company want to know about how the business is doing?
If the early-stage employees have significant equity in the company, then they'll be very interested in how the company is doing. If their upside is paycheck, bonus and equity proportional to their salary (as you'd find in an established company), then one employer is as good as another.
I think the question of how much information to share is heavily dependent on how loyal the employees are to the company, and loyalty is almost entirely a matter of how much equity they hold (and more specifically how much equity they hold relative to the founders.)
In my experience loyalty is almost entirely a matter of who feels trusted and valued... in which sharing information freely (or appearing to) is a major factor. Especially when that information is directly relevant to them and their own financial security - even if you're just making wages it's still nice to know that your employer is stable.
I doubt this is true. I can believe that it's a good idea to give people equity at the margin. But in my experience loyal people are loyal. People who put themselves first put themselves first. I think there's very little correlation between how good people are and how good they think they are.
Take a good, valuable or loyal employee and treat them badly and you can probably lose them. Take a bad, incompetent or disloyal employee and no matter how much you compensate them I suspect you can not change them.
You'd never get to the end state you describe if people are uncomfortable recommending the software because of the name. Word-of-mouth fails when the literal word is something you won't say.
They should change the name; it's difficult to understand why the maintainers are so attached to something so self-defeating.
That was my point: while you may have some/strong inhibitions due to this name, I don't. To me, "git" is far worse - probably because of gaps in my English, but still. You don't get why they don't change the name; I would rather folks spend effort on improving Gimp than changing its name. (Same for git btw.)
I think name changes are like bug fixes: the later in the life cycle you go for it, the more expensive. Whether that is worth the cost... in the case of Gimp and git: for you maybe yes, for me decidedly no. Doesn't mean either of us is more right than the other, but does say something about how we feel about using and talking about these pieces of software.
Sometimes it means "trans-Atlantic", an accent which Buckley, Burns, and many pre-1950 movie stars spoke with (while on-screen anyway). It falls somewhere between the accents found in the USA and accents found in the UK.
In the context of this thread, I think it means the mid-Atlantic states in the US. It's close to the American "television news accent".
EDITED TO ADD: It's worth noting that the two accents called "mid-Atlantic" sound very different.
That was the intent, yes. But I was neither born nor raised in the mid-Atlantic states, and people are generally surprised when I tell them I was born in the deep South because I don't have the expected southern drawl. "Mid-Atlantic" these days is usually a stand-in for "non-distinct American accent".
Less density doesn't imply less housing, especially when empty land is cheap, as it typically is in the USA. You just use more space.
I hate cars, and I hate how expensive housing is, but as far as I can tell, housing is even more expensive in places (in the USA anyway) where cars are less necessary.
This is mostly due to supply and demand. Disregarding market forces, low density housing is some of the most expensive out there. This is due to higher per-unit construction, utility, transportation, and infrastructure costs.
Unfortunately, low density construction is the default in the USA. High density housing gets bogged down in reviews and permitting, and medium density housing is effectively illegal in most cities in the country.
If we had actually been building medium and high density housing over the past century, the housing problems we're experiencing today wouldn't be nearly as bad. But that housing is sadly rare, and we now have to play catch-up.
Do you have a citation for this? My intuition is that the construction of low density track housing would have far less regulatory burden than high density housing. It also has a (more) robust labor force in the US especially compared with high density construction, a framing carpenter does not a steel fitter make.
> High density housing gets bogged down in reviews and permitting,
Yes, because it's more high stakes and should be subject to a greater level of scrutiny than a 1-2 story single family dwelling. Check out the Millennium tower debacle or that apartment building that collapsed in Florida if you think otherwise.
I don't have a citation for construction costs, and I will concede that there are many factors that may make some low density developments cheaper per unit then some higher density development.
However, construction is only part of the picture. Low density development imposes terrible financial costs for cities that contain them. That's because the taxable value per square mile is much lower, but infrastructure (sewer, roads, etc) has the same per-mile maintenance and replacement costs. The infrastructure maintenance costs in many low density developments is often greater then the amount of tax revenue the development generates.
For more information on the hidden costs of low density development, I can't recommend this video [1] by Not Just Bikes enough.
> has the same per-mile maintenance and replacement costs.
No it doesn't, the cost to tear up a street in a high density area is much higher than it is in a low density area, especially if we are looking at hidden economic costs.
The problem is that the supply/demand argument is that the demand largely isn't from people, it's from investment firms. And investment firms don't give two hoots about neighborhoods, density, cars, or anything other than the property's value appreciating over time (which it will, since we can't (without spending gobs of money) create more land).
Also, my personal opinion: I never want to live in a dense, or even semi-dense population center again. Living in a single family detached home with a small yard is fantastic. I can use speakers.
Condos are much worse speculation vehicles compared to houses, since most of what you own is (depreciating) structure compared to (appreciating) land. To the extent that you want housing for people vs. speculators, you want multifamily.
You're comparing only the densest places (i.e. expensive places with mostly apartments) to only the least dense places, giant houses on big lots. Look at a pre-1950s / railroad neighborhood of basically any smaller/older city in the US, you'll often find a walkable, affordable neighborhood of single family homes.
Also - cheap land does not mean that it's cheap to build and maintain. Almost all of the infrastructure required to build (sewer, power, roads, etc) scale up with area, not density.
> ...but the recovery system is exactly what they need to build first.
I can't find the reference, but consistent with that, I remember reading someplace that the number of items in your queue should typically be zero, since queues can't actually make the rest of the system any faster. All they can really do is buffer temporary bursts, or buffer while the rest of the system recovers. And for that you'll definitely need your recovery system working as a prerequisite.
Your anecdote, while I presume is true, doesn't address the main point. You should probably read
Gualdrapo's experience (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32576061), and I find it true on large swaths of Latin America and Asia.
I, for one, would lose contact to a lot of my friends if I deleted facebook (and already have lost contact with some of them because they selfishly deleted their fb)
I'm not a lawyer, but I don't expect this to be a a "hill to die on" at all.
If this professor is unconnected to the sanctioned Tornado Cash service, then Github shouldn't have to worry about running afoul of the sanctions by hosting the code.
If a company like Uber can be divided into multiple Ubers that have to compete with each other, then the over-investment by venture capitalists can still be turned into a societal win.