Google's the puritans of the web. If you have an association with them then you must live under their strict rules.
That said, I think something has changed. I'm not sure why it is, but they have become more prudish in recent years. Is it a generation thing? A change sent down from their corporate clients? Pressure groups? Perhaps more government influence? All of the above?
A programmer we hired had a banned personal android dev account. He used multi-login to login to corporate account and personal account.
Google tied both together and brought our startup down wiping out adsense, youtube, docs and play account. They kept adwords alive billing for $200 a month for almost an year.
This is true. In the US you have a small number of telcos with a strong grip on the industry whereas in many (but not all) EU countries excessive choice reduces the problems.
The thing to understand about net neutrality is it's a transfer of power from business to government. The devil is in the detail. If you look closely at the laws involved there are vague clauses that allow for extra government censorship and control in the future.
In basic terms, net neutrality sort-of makes sense in the US and makes less sense in the EU. It's a poisoned chalice created and pushed by do-gooders.
I didn't write that comment, but in my opinion net neutrality is mostly a solution in search of a problem. Hypothetically, ISPs could try extorting and controlling the entire internet, but realistically it's not going to work.
I'm more concerned about app neutrality. Apple is extorting 30% from app makers and enforces rules to ensure their dominance over my phone.
> I didn't write that comment, but in my opinion net neutrality is mostly a solution in search of a problem.
Net neutrality is (partial) remedy for lack of competition. Cure that and a lot of the reasons for net neutrality disappear. However, it is not realistic to expect true competition in the US telecoms market anytime soon.
One reason a lot of people see net neutrality as a solution in search of a problem is that net neutrality was the default before and it hasn't been egregiously abused to date. I'm sure a lot of people will agree it's a problem once they get some first hand experience of it.
> Hypothetically, ISPs could try extorting and controlling the entire internet, but realistically it's not going to work.
I don't know. Comcast seems to be doing a pretty good job at it in the US.
> I'm more concerned about app neutrality. Apple is extorting 30% from app makers and enforces rules to ensure their dominance over my phone.
Yes, either via an enterprise certificate or via a free developer account. Especially in China they are big on sideloading via enterprise certificates :)
Yes, I know it's not ideal, but at least it's possible.
I can understand your viewpoint having gone through similar and fixed it on my own. If people want to cure their depression and anxiety through self help, my advice is to try adjusting your mindset before thinking about nutrients.
My theory is that having the wrong mindset for long enough sets in motion a process that ends up in physical illness, inflammation and nutrient problems - which make the mental illness worse. So people should try learning mindfulness, stoicism, CBT and giving them at least a few months (with a good diet/exercise) before trying this route.
Nutrient deficiencies can cause all sorts of problems - I read about it extensively when I was ill. At one point I was convinced I might have a magnesium deficiency but when I got a proper test done (not the standard one) it showed high levels of magnesium. So, it's not always the miracle that it appears.
Yes, there are also other things like meditation and brainwave entrainment (Neuro-Programmer 3). Blood tests, urine tests, hair sample analysis, and assessing gene data are readily accessible (unless too expensive or not covered by insurance), so there shouldn't be anything standing in the way of at least getting those tests done to see if there are any immediately identifiable/addressable issues, deficiencies, or excesses.
A startup is a new business. It's not anything special.
It looks like you are falling for propaganda. When someone wants to purchase a car or a home, there's such a momentum behind the idea of financing that a customer who uses their own savings is viewed as odd... perhaps even a money launderer, yet it's perfectly normal.
I mention that because there's a similar momentum behind business financing. If you build software for a living, then you can build a new business with no overheads, no ties, no time limits, no favours, no budgets, no business plan and low risk. It's pure freedom to do what you want.
A successful startup in the eyes of VCs grows fast. It has to, so VCs have some hope of making a non-stupid return. Which is why we get all the drama around unicorns etc etc and more etc.
Does that mean that you, as a founder, have any obligation to play that game?
No. You. Do. Not.
If you choose not to, that's very much your choice. It gives you a number of advantages, including no loss of control over direction or everyday running, a very much lower danger of being fired from your own project, and a wider choice of potential investment sources when you've been running profitably for a while. (Are VCs the only money source in town? Not even close.)
And if you have a solid business model, it significantly raises your prospects of still having a business - and a job - when the unicorn hunter scene crashes and burns around you.
Which it inevitably will - possibly quite soon.
The disadvantage? If the business is seriously viable with many real customers and profits and such, you may to have to settle for being a multimillionaire instead of a billionaire.
African proverb: "If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together."
Startups are designed to go fast and cash out. The founders make a fortune and move on to something else, life doesn't really change for anyone else. A business with real longevity will go more slowly but everyone in the business will share in the ride.
The corner store and Snapchat are both businesses but they aren't the same. Saying this isn't the same as saying that startups are better, just that they are different.
Actually, in this market, it's smarter to take out a home mortgage, and invest the remainder. Mortgage rates are low. If it were the opposite, and mortgage rates were high, you'd have an argument, but that hasn't been the case in decades.
It's true in this market, but not true if, for example, the stock market crashes and/or we have a deflationary depression.
Not saying that's particularly likely, but avoiding debt does remove risk in such scenarios--if you never take on debt you can never go bankrupt, even if your upside is also lower. People make different choices about how to balance risk, reduce stress, etc. It only looks irrational when one person imposes their values on the decisions of another.
There's lots of different hybrids out there. You can get buses that only use the electric part when moving from a stop. In that case, you get the main advantage of electric (torque) and then combustion takes over for normal running conditions. I think something like that is more sensible.
> Maybe a sharp increase in team-building activities. Taking everyone for lazer tag is cheaper than increasing salaries.
That can also be a sign that the founders hate each other and are about to split the operation - one of them is treating the employees as children in the hope that they go with a favourite parent's splinter company. They are probably doing it subconsciously.
LOL this reminds me of the place I interned at. After my internship ended they seemed to have a huge split. Except the only company event we did was go to see a movie. It was still cool.
I would be interested to see how the output of drug companies change after they are nationalised. Like would they focus on simple solutions that solve problems (rather than expensive solutions that hide problems)? And would they struggle at being yet another public service with a huge budget to be cut. Will their best staff move abroad for better salaries? Stuff like that.
I suspect surgery can give us some interesting insights here.
My understanding is that surgery research mostly takes place at university hospitals. I think that, outside medical devices, there isn't the same kind of non-practising science industry behind surgery research - it's all done by surgeons at research hospitals.
Research hospitals tend to be university hospitals and outside (and even inside) the US, university hospitals tend to be loosely government controlled.
So if we want to know what state controlled medical research could look like, I guess we just look to surgery.
In many countries Uber is just another taxi brand, one that's licensed by the local authorities. The only thing it has going for it is the app, but all their competitors have apps too. Plus, I've never had to use an app - I just call an automated number, press one digit and a taxi arrives at my door within a few minutes. If I'm using a mobile phone then the operator answers.
Maybe - but in many countries it isn't. In my European country, calling a cab means always talking to the operator (often after 2m ringing) and then waiting 10-30m. Around 10% of the time it never comes, so you'll have to call again. When it finally does, your reward is paying an extra fee for having called.
Then there are the zones; your home is a bit outside the city? The meter will be running - at an increased rate! - before the car even arrives.
Never had that problem here in Edinburgh - been using the same cab company for years (both personal and business). They have an app or an IVR system or an operator.
Never had a missed cab, cars are always very clean and drivers good. I honestly can't think of a single problem I've had with them in what must be 15+ years of regular use.
I don't understand it personally. They sort-of remind me of how the US brought cable TV to the UK. There was huge investment on infrastructure and an amazing service. The funding ended, service declined but that infrastructure, which was decades ahead of anything else still existed.
Uber is similar, but anyone can set up a taxi service. Their own taxi drivers can even do it. Existing competitors can take over when the discounts disappear. It just doesn't make sense, it's like a pyramid with no foundation.
I think you are placing too much weight on your employment. It's good to have a job, but it shouldn't be your sole focus. Technology can be horrible because conferences and communities glamourise these big technology companies. You are buying into that hype, yet the reality is different.
I suggest maybe looking for work with an interesting business that isn't as well known - one that doesn't have weird, abstract puzzles during the interview process. A place where you can build your confidence, rather than be a cog in a multinational machine.
As for the depression/anxiety. You sound like you are over thinking things. Criticising elements of your life, rather than accepting them. The lack of confidence from your job will be making it worse. Read about mindfulness, it's a collection of techniques that teaches you to look at your surroundings in vivid detail without making judgements, and to just sit down without thoughts running through your head. The depression and anxiety will slowly fade away as you get used to thinking in a standard fashion.
That said, I think something has changed. I'm not sure why it is, but they have become more prudish in recent years. Is it a generation thing? A change sent down from their corporate clients? Pressure groups? Perhaps more government influence? All of the above?