I have a close friend who got Sr Engineer offer from Bolt. The 500k yearly TC is somewhat misleading because it’s assuming more than 2x growth in evaluation. While they may very well achieve that, you’re not gonna see the full 500k for an uncertain amount of time. More people should be aware of the nuances in these compensation figures.
It is, if they're offering RSUs rather than options. With options there's no meaningful "current valuation" since they're granted with a strike price that should be equal to their last valuation, there's only a potential distribution of future outcomes based on expected multiples (incl. 0).
I’m also a Primephonic subscriber. Been using it everyday for the past 8 months. Let’s be honest, their mobile app sucks. I’m using iOS but willing to bet on their Android app sucking equally.
That said, I’m paying them for the giant catalog, good curation, and a dedicated streaming service just for the classical genre. Realistically I think these will stay with Apple’s acquisition. So in the long term I’ll probably be happy.
On the other hand, their decision to shut down the app before the alternative is launched is disappointing and unacceptable.
i think as far as streaming / discovery apps go primephonic was ok, esp considering their probably miniscule dev team. bandcamp is also just so-so.
but both of them are head and shoulders above any apple made media player. beggars belief how the most rich company of the world can't put together even a mediocre music app on their own vertically controlled OS/hw product.
Internal politics. Anecdotes are that org leaders face potentially serious consequences if the products they’re responsible for are down per status page. So they find ways to cover it up. This culture is passed top down as everyone is incentivized to downplay widespread outage.
Yep, the actual problem is lies about service uptime in marketing content or during contract negotiations. "Well, all of our competitors claim five nines so we have to, too."
From what I see, lots of people who object to this policy change raised a (legitimate) concern: where is the evidence supporting the claim? It’s not like corporations have ever had any problem firing people over productivity issues. If people argue over political topics all day at work and that turns out to affect their productivity negatively, it’s much less controversial for the company to act upon it from a performance angle.
> Note that we will continue to engage in politics that directly relate to our business or products. This means topics like antitrust, privacy, employee surveillance. If you're in doubt as to whether something falls within those lines or not, please, again, reach out for guidance.
yes but they have nothing to do with your assessment "gravity is acceleration". "Forces cause acceleration" is more accurate, there are 4 kinds of forces so gravity is just one cause.
Can you link reports on this or the source where you obtained this information?
In the US at least, the claim that “all Chinese companies are controlled government” is thrown around way too often without evidence backing it up. People seem to accept it as common sense that doesn’t need fact-checks anymore. I’m not saying you are one of them; I just wish we all verify non-obvious claims for our own benefits
You actually think that the largest communication app in China isn't under complete control of the CCP and that they don't have complete access to every transaction that flows through Wechat servers?
Since people don’t seem to think this is obvious - the board has access to the company’s plans, therefore so does the CCP if there is a CCP board member.
Board members have access to the CEO and other managers, therefore the CCP board member can obviously make statements to management about what the CCP does and does not approve of.
No citation is needed to know that these are the consequences of having a CCP board member.
The employee would just have a very long notice period - so they are officially employed under the same contract as before, but the employer might revoke their access and say they don't need to show up. (And of course the contract would prevent them working or consulting for another company without their employer's agreement during the notice period, just as it did before.)
In some sense this is a good problem to have. With on-prem you used to have very limited resources to start with, so cost efficiency is a baked-in requirement. With cloud providers you seem to have limitless resources and the new problem of cost optimization arises.
Admittedly there’s difference between optimizing fully-controlled resources and cloud provider managed services. For one, low visibility into cloud service internals makes such optimization harder.
