The median salary in the US is $29/hour.
By definition a one hour meeting has at least two people in it; often more. So two median guys talking for an hour costs ~$60. The meeting the you really want transcripts for often contain more than one person; and often involve people earning more than the median. I'd happily ad $1 to every single one of my meetings if they get more productive.
$0.70/hr is our starter rate for low-volume testing. In production, developers will see higher usage and choose to commit to volume and longer-term usage. Because of this, we've seen most teams don’t pay the starter price once they scale beyond early pilots
Enabling transcription/recordings per platform and remembering to record creates user-dependent setup. Also the host often needs to install apps which adds security friction, and you still have to build/maintain separate implementations for Zoom/Meet/Teams which is often a cost that devs don't want to deal with
Instead, we built a single API that can get the same results without the issues mentioned above so you can focus on building the features your users care about
It is a lot but processing real time video and audio streams inherently consumes alot of CPU. So they may not be making as much profit on that price as you'd think.
I run an open source alternative to Recall (for meeting bots), and our costs are about 8 cents per hour.
Nah, unionize and report to regulators as much as possible. Can't succeed in the worker version of the Kobayashi Maru by "starting your own Amazon." Seek leverage and engage it to maximum force.
Companies will never give a shit about you, put them in a box like you would a shark. Don't play by existing broken rules, you will just suffer.
Why don’t we fix the union we already have - our government?
My biggest gripe with unions is they’re the political version of “let’s make a new standard”. Yeah it works - for a time - but ultimately just adds complexity to temporarily address a symptom of the problem.
Representatives are a function of the electorate. If you want better representation, not only must people run, but the electorate must turn over (old ideas and their voters dying out, new voters and their ideas aging in). 1.8M voters over the age of 55 die every year, 4 million voters turn 18. Worker rights support increases as cohort age declines (and skews progressive, naturally).
Certainly, a long term fix that will take decades. Near term, gotta organize, which can be done today. And workers need help today.
>> Representatives are a function of the electorate.
Not in America. The essentials of our representative republic make it not especially representative. It's badly in need of reform to make the legislature actually representative: much larger house of representatives, 3-5 member districts, ranked choice voting, 18 year terms for supreme court justices, etc. etc.
None of what you listed will ever happen, so why bother thinking about it? Just accept that the U.S. is not democratic and never will be. That’s not even really pessimistic; plenty of people live happy, fulfilling lives under undemocratic regimes
Because it's not your government. Between media message management, corporate lobbying, and outright gerrymandering, the US is an oligarchy, not a democracy.
Unions, imperfect as they are, can be far more directly representative.
I have a total of 3000€ available to me in cash and some possessions like my pc (no house no car). Do you realistically think it is possible for me to start up a business?
Yes...depending on the business. My friend and I started an online retail store with $500 each during the early e-commerce days.
As the saying goes, why spend your money when you can spend an investor's money? The trick isn't starting a business, but starting a business with a viable business model.
1. Too many humans - decision-making is slowed down & and it's expensive
Cut half - faster decisions, more money. Will you have more problems, Yes. But you'll never know how bloated you were till you get lean again.
2. Too expensive humans
Most developers at FANGS can be replaced with mediocre devs in iowa or India. They will cut high-priced salaries soon and replace them with entry-level talent.
> Most developers at FANGS can be replaced with mediocre devs in iowa or India. They will cut high-priced salaries soon and replace them with entry-level talent.
Software companies have been trying this for 30 years and it has never worked.
Facebook is dumping money into VR to try and push their boulder of a terrible idea (the "metaverse") up a hill. Except the hill is a solid 90 degree angle cliff
Nobody wants to go to Walmart in VR and artificially grocery shop. That's a dystopian misery. But Facebook is happy to try!
Their counterparts at places like VRchat meanwhile realized that just making a sandbox environment for people to do whatever they wanted is far more enticing to users. Valve meanwhile is happy to chug along and putter out critically acclaimed games to go with their own bespoke hardware releases
For those who have not seen the Walmart VR demo, it's really something else. Something is going very very wrong at Meta if they thought this looked enticing:
They are losing stupid amounts of money on VR (as part of the R&D thing) in the hope that people will use it for work. The awesome value of Oculus Quest 2 will probably never be seen again.
Spreadsheet warrior kinda shit. CFO needed 500M for a stock-buyback. CFO wrote down some napkin math, let go 1/5 of the team. Murdered all innovation into the ground. Wallstreet loved it. Snapchat is a cashcow on a spreadsheet. CFO knows he needs another 20% layoff in Q1 of 2023 to drive his cost of capital down further. Expect more pain from the suits.
I think it's just really hard for a company to keep innovating like that. Once you get to a certain size about the best you can do is refinement on your existing product or muscle into adjacent products.
For Snap? Probably. For Apple? Steve Jobs was never sitting on $100+ billion in cash. Though, Apple's buy backs + dividends made more sense given how profitable they were and how much cash they had on hand. Snap has never had positive operating income.
my point is if the stock price jumps then the buyback occurs at a greater price per share, making the effect of the buyback less effective (fewer shares are eliminated)
