Wouldn't the dethroner of Google be some new technology which is not a search engine like Google but better at solving the original task of finding information on how to solve problems?
Just like how iPad dethroned Windows PCs for average home user but not Mac because Windows had the monopoly and then an innovation destroyed MS in this space and not a competitor.
I don't think Google dethrones Yahoo and AltaVista scenario will occur again.
If one is at rock bottom then working hard and being productive can get them to middle class lifestyle. It works. Helped billions of people in the past few decades.
But starting from middle class and working hard won't make riches. Think of it physically. A hardworking person can build a house compared to a drunkard who will be homeless. Yet the same hard working person can't build million houses and get insanely wealthy.
To get truly materially rich (millions+ usd, servants, yachts, etc) one usually needs to be evil and screw over other people. Productivity, in the sense of a machine making houses in the millions, would make the inventor fairly rich. But this is the exception rather than the rule. Most riches are arrived at immorally as parent comment mentions.
Oh very much it is. Come to the lovely Eastern Europe and see for yourself how good national owned companies are. Full of useless bureaucrats put there to ensure voters so the ruling party can continue ruling. Also in huge debts which are paid by more taxes so the working people pay for the lazy.
Unless the human race somehow chains itself to selflessness, nationalization + democracy is a sure way to destroy any organization. Now privately owned is not much better but in theory can be replaced with a competitor. Not so much for a national organization.
Source: Living and suffering daily in Eastern Europe.
On the other hand, outside the Eastern Europe many of the state-owned corporations work pretty well, and usually the service goes down the drain after selling them off - see UK railways.
I'm from Eastern Europe too (actually Central Europe - if you know what I mean, you'll know exactly which country), but I've been living in the UK for many years so I have a different perspective.
Privatisation of the British railways was a disaster, and the creeping privatisation of the National Health Service is a disaster in the making as well. As far as I'm concerned, when we're talking about well-understood, national-scale services, private sector almost always starves the service out of greed or is outright incompetent.
That won't stop organizations with lots of money unless the cost for more credits raises exponentially. Everyone will have to stop when millions and billions get into play.
Inconvenience. With the second account one has to re-friend all the users from the first account. Also it would lead to bad social standing as by re-friending it will be obvious they are breaking the 100 posts per person per life rule. This could even lead to automatic bans by studying the connection structure.
It could be the case that they 'hire' someone internally from role A to the advertised role B. But due to some legal requirements they have to run an Ad so they appear open to all candidates.
I had pretty good experience with recruiting agents. Sadly didn't get the job as I flunked the leetcoding part but I got an interview compared to rejection when I applied via forms and CV.
Ford was paying more money to employees who were more conformist to his standard of ideal living.
To the hyper individualistic culture like USA today this can only seem bad but this is Japan with factory towns [1] and generally more collectivist culture.
This also need not be bad. Clean and simple lifestyles could make many more people healthier and happier compared to constant analysis-paralysis state of choice. One could even say that this company is morally better than other companies due to promoting a lifestyle which makes people happier in the long term.
> Finally, is the challenge of having a society built around strong ethic ties. Even if Helsinki were to switch to English, there will be always be outsiders i.e. those who are not ethnic Finns. Again, this is not something that policy can solve and is one of the reasons that silicon valley and North America in general do very well at.
Recently I read a book called Persian Fire by Tom Holland. One detail which struck me as very interesting was how the first democratic ruler of Athens, Cleisthenes, solved the tribalism problem. Here tribalism is the perfect word as the average Athentian citizen of that time associated with one of the 10 tribes based on surnames. His solution was to invent 150 demesnes and have people arbitrarily assigned to them. He also invented new surnames.
Something similar is happening in contemporary Singapore. Every neighbourhood must not have more than X% of any ethnic group.
My point is that policy can solve this. Might make many people unhappy, like Finns who are forbidden to live in some zip codes because there are too many Finns, but policy is definitely a way to approach this problem (if it is a problem, nothing wrong with mono-cultural societies who do not want foreigners).
Example: `rust slow compilation site:stackoverflow.com`