I was going to mention the same thing, also the page is clearly designed by a woman. Never mind that neither Sundar nor Satya are not white, or that many VPs in the Big Tech world are women. OP seems to have a very distorted view of the corporate world and has villified the white alpha male in her mind.
Explanation for non-native speakers (like me) who didn't know the rule:
The words "how" and "like" clash because "How" already implies manner or appearance, making the addition of "like" (which serves a similar function with "what") superfluous.
In this case. It's hard to make a firm rule because you can construct sentences with both words in them that aren't wrong-sounding, because the same word can be used in subtly grammatically different ways.
A good rule of thumb is to phrase the sentence as a question and see if it sounds correct. "What does it look like?" is fine. "How does it look?" is fine. "How does it look like?" does not. In the question "Like how?", "like" is more akin to "I said, like, what do you want me to do?" - I'm no linguist, but they do have a term for that use.
Hah, this reminds me of the Isaac Asimov story about catching Nazi spies inflitrating the US...
Given Americans' general indifference to perfect grammer, if it "sounds" right they usually don't make a fuss. So they might have learned something new as well.
I haven’t read the Asimov story, but it was probably based on this true event:
As a result, U.S. troops began asking other soldiers questions that they felt only Americans would know the answers to in order to flush out the German infiltrators, which included naming state capitals, sports and trivia questions related to the U.S., etc. This practice resulted in Brigadier General Bruce C. Clarke being held at gunpoint for some time after he incorrectly said the Chicago Cubs were in the American League[7][8][9][10] and a captain spending a week in detention after he was caught wearing German boots. General Omar Bradley was repeatedly stopped in his staff car by checkpoint guards who seemed to enjoy asking him such questions. The Skorzeny commando paranoia also contributed to numerous instances of mistaken identity. All over the Ardennes, U.S. soldiers attempted to persuade suspicious U.S. military policemen that they were genuine GIs.
Ugh, I'd fail any questions based on US sports. And, these days, 30 years removed high school civics, I'd likely miss some of the state capitals as well.
This is how it actually works. The brain machine learns from available data and sorts out which is correct. "Sounds right" is the output from that neural network. The "rules" are then derived from what some set of people think sounds right.
Hi, American here and "how" + "to look like" makes my teeth itch. However, people generally find grammar corrections to be needlessly pedantic when the erroneous grammar does not impede comprehension, so I've personally decided to choose my grammatical battles and simply fume about people talking about "how something looks like" in private instead.
I generally also choose to keep such complaints private, and I'm not sure what whim motivated me to speak up this time. Rather to my surprise, this trivial gripe has been voted up more than almost anything else I've written here over the last sixteen years. It would seem that there actually is, in some contexts, somehow, at least some appetite for grammatical pedantry!
Language is tricky. One of the trickiest things! There's so much tied up in it, objective and subjective. It's a simple tool. It's an academic object. It's a well-defined spec. It's a living ambiguous blob. But it's also one of the biggest pieces of one's culture. There's a reason the French are so possessive of their language where it lives in cultural exclaves. There's a reason the Irish have laws to keep their native language alive.
I can see at least two grammatical errors in your first two sentences.
Imagine being a grammar pedant and missing a comma before the conjunction linking two independent clauses.
It's more of an emotional reaction to the life-changing impact of $9 million, expressed that way, rather than a literal feeling to be taken word for word.
According to the article, the issue was caused by:
> "engineers had identified DNS resolution of the DynamoDB API endpoint for US-EAST-1 as the likely root cause"
Interestingly, we found matching errors in our own logs:
> System.Net.WebException
> The remote name could not be resolved: 'dynamodb.us-east-1.amazonaws.com'
Occurrences were recorded on:
- 2025-04-30
- 2025-05-29
- 2025-06-17
- Yesterday
We had logged this as a low-priority bug since previous incidents only affected our AWS testing environments (and never our production env which is on Azure). At the time, we assumed it was some CI/CD glitch.
It now seems that the underlying cause was this DNS issue all along, and only yesterday did it start impacting systems outside of AWS.
You just made me realize we had random DNS failures using ElastiCache last weeks... Totally randomly, some elasticache endpoints would fail to resolve within our VPC, bringing down some of our services.
Good read, but it stretches "data model" a bit. It's really about the product's conceptual/domain model, the primary entities you elevate and design around, and how that choice cascades into UX, pricing, and go-to-market. The examples (Slack channels, Notion blocks, Figma’s canvas, Toast's menu items) show how a strong model can compound value across features.
Where it blurs things: data model != UX strategy != business model, and success isn't only about a novel model, execution and distribution still matter greatly.
My takeaway: read "data model" here as "core conceptual model", and ask whether your product has a clear center that lets new features inherit context instead of becoming one-offs.
I would still defend the author that in fact once we look at a data model, we can see the limitations of the product. And there is no way to nullify all limitations; it will always be a tradeoff.
The elephants wandered off, and now a bunch of giraffes are drinking from the pond. Some of them even spread their legs wide to keep their feet from getting wet. Very relaxing to watch.
> Some of them even spread their legs wide to keep their feet from getting wet.
I always interpreted the spreadeagle pose of a drinking giraffe to be a way of bringing their head closer to the ground. Do they sometimes not do that?
Leszek, I don’t think your reply invalidates what blargey said. Showing that "down" can also be neutral, impactful or enthusiastic (like "down for" or "get to the bottom of") is useful, but it adds nuance rather than disproving the broader pattern that up = good / down = bad runs deep across languages.
It certainly disproves that it's a pattern without exceptions, and therefore invalidates or at least questions the idea that every instance of up and down (like which way up north is) has to be mapped to good and bad.
It's all just anecdotes vs. anecdotes. The alleged "broader pattern" is not proven by one any more than it is disproven by the other. (For what it's worth, I do think there is a cultural pattern, especially in biblical metaphors, but in general use it's far weaker than what TFA is making it out to be.)
It’s actually more of a win-win situation if you look closely.
Stablecoin issuers earn yield from holding U.S. Treasuries, which sustains their business model. Meanwhile, people in distressed economies get practical access to a digital dollar, often cheaper and faster than navigating restrictive exchange rules or paying steep conversion fees at money-changers. That’s meaningful when local currencies are unstable or losing value.
Of course, not all stablecoin issuers are trustworthy, and some governments under economic distress may ban or limit these instruments. But when the setup works, both sides benefit.
The foreign individual is likely better off in game theory terms, but their country is collectively likely worse off due to a reduction in their central bank's independence and ability to perform seigniorage/print money. Difficult to ban for the foreign nation, and probably results in a greater need for dollars for their government also.
Probably not. You would be right if we were talking about honest, competent central bankers. But most people live in poor countries. Why are those countries poor?
Every country is different, but poor countries are mostly poor because they are governed by kleptocrats, generally including their central bankers, and hyperinflation in particular is a constant menace. When the central bankers aren't directly kleptocratic themselves, they are very often incompetent but loyal, similar to most of Trump's nominees. In this situation, generally speaking, things that put power over individuals' lives back in the hands of those individuals, instead of the kleptocrats' hands, will improve the situation not just of the individuals but of their whole country.
I agree that kleptocracy and incompetence are a important factor, but I'm not sure it's the only one. There's a correlation between corruption indices and low GDP but I'm not sure it's causal. For example the US scores only moderately in corruption index terms, but does quite well in GDP terms. Arguably GDP growth rates are a better measure, in which case there's possibly a inverse correlation.
For example China, India and Malaysia have grown quite substantially are not particularly transparent, but they are alike in their resistance to dollarization. On the other hand Ecuador and El Salvador are examples of countries that have fully embraced dollarization with less than great outcomes. There are examples in the middle as well, but there is not a clear trend that it's necessarily a change for the better of the country and it's citizens.
To me it seems like a continuation of the IMF's dollarization as described by Joseph Stiglitz in 'Globalization and its discontents', in terms of mechanisms and effects on recipient countries. From this perspective it's less like transferring power from kleptocrats to the people, and more like choosing kleptocrats that are offering a better deal.
I don't think corruption indices do a great job of measuring kleptocracy. The PRC's national government, for example, has clearly prioritized enriching the general population through economic development and reducing poverty over lining their own pockets, despite not being transparent or accountable. The indices do provide some information; extremely kleptocratic countries like Venezuela, Eritrea, Yemen, and Nicaragua reliably come out on the bottom of the CPI. But the most damaging effects of kleptocracy are very subtle.
I do agree that dollarization hasn't been resoundingly successful, and that does undermine my thesis somewhat. I agree that cryptocurrencies are like super-dollarization: not only do they remove domestic government control of monetary policy, they remove or weaken domestic government control of and visibility into capital flows, banking services such as savings and lending, and payments. If that would be great, you'd expect dollarization to at least be good. And it isn't clear that it has been. It hasn't been obviously disastrous either—you can make credible arguments that Ecuador or El Salvador would be either better off or worse off without it—but it hasn't been obviously beneficial.
I think "choosing kleptocrats that are offering a better deal" is a good description of dollarization and, for example, Tether, USDC, or CBDCs. But, as a description of Bitcoin and Ethereal, it's comprehensively incorrect; there haven't ever been any credible allegations of corruption in their blockchains, unless you count Ethereal's DAO rollback. They've so far been completely immune to the kind of politically-motivated currency manipulation that is the actual official job of central banks behind fiat currencies like the dollar.
True, but context matters. SBF was running a disruptive crypto startup that drew intense scrutiny, and his operations were so amateurish that proving misconduct was straightforward. Traditional corporations tend to reduce the risk of prison-worthy exposure thanks to tighter compliance and better legal insulation, even when the harm is just as large.
It’s less a shift in power networks and more about Trump using existing presidency tools more aggressively. Harvard didn’t lose influence, it’s being targeted because it's outspoken and symbolic. The immigration authority falls under the executive branch, so the president can act unilaterally, without needing broader support.
Gender bias checked!