In addition, Google is still run disorganized-bag-of-cats management style and YouTube is so indpendent from the mothership they're almost their own company.
Conspiracy is unlikely purely because Neal Mohan is empowered to tell the Chrome team to pound sand and will do so if he thinks they'd make a call that would damage YouTube's numbers.
Instead of just "stop using it" (pay isn't actually an option here, people who are paying are still getting the delay), let's force them to comply with reasonable antitrust regulation under threat of fines. Or preferably, break them up, youtube shouldn't be part of google and neither should chrome.
Not to mention, if performance with YouTube is slow, there's no clue for users that Firefox is the problem. There's no banner telling you "for faster YouTube performance use Chrome". And it's extremely unlikely that your average user is going to try to compare with Chrome, or even the thought occurs to them. They probably think their ISP just got worse or something.
If this were an actual mechanism to try to get users to switch, it would be an idiotic one.
Teslas have no redundancy for their sensors and depend upon unreliable GPS.
They have some level of redundant processing, but I've seen FSD disengage because of software faults without anything taking over.
They should never be allowed to run a rideshare service just due to this even if they do miraculously solve camera-only perception and not relying on HD maps.
Just an FYI here: Google's community support forums aren't well named as their intended purpose is for users to answer other user's questions. For the community to support each other.
For actual support you need a paid account to reach out to.
You could argue that it's badly named and should just be called Google's community forum instead, which is what it really is.
Have you seen answers.Microsoft.com, the most useless support community on the internet full of „independent advisors“ aka Microsoft simps just sending links to irrelevant documentation?
While we're at it, have you seen the Apple ones? 3 year old threads with 100 messages of people saying 'I have this same issue' and zero response from Apple.
Some examples of the subjects of these threads:
- SD Card readers in original M1 Macbook Pro not working
- Bluetooth headphones balance getting messed up randomly (so old someone created an application to automatically center balance)
- Specific Intel Macbooks crashing after using a Thunderbolt dock exactly twice.
All of them with no response from Apple at all and no fixes in sight.
Very fair replies. I didn't mean to call out Google + fans of Google in particular, but rather "Bigco"s and fans thereof in general.
Out of all of them I guess I'm more disappointed in Apple because they have cultivated this aura of superior UX (so that emphasis on UX should extend to when people have problems).. but then again it's largely just an aura.
Google famously underpays as it leverages it's name. Startups can't really compete on total compensation because so much is tied to equity which can be made liquid in the case of big tech. At the same time, startups don't want to give away their equity and are fairly conservative about it. I don't see this changing. The current situation will resolve itself in 1-2 yrs and we will be back again.
Yeah, in the past few years startups have become super stingy with equity. In the best case you end up making the same you would at a big tech company, and the worst case you end up with nothing. I interviewed at several, and after doing the math they would all need to 10x with minimal dilution, and have an exit within 5 years to make any money. Once you realize the odds of that happening, it becomes pretty obvious that you are not being given a good deal.
This 2019 discussion thread where HN was pushing back at a pre-YC head Garry Tan, especially this subthread, was a memorable example of devs complaining en masse about startup equity stinginess.
Disclaimer: I currently work for Amazon but I would argue that their vesting schedule is their strongest selling point, especially in the current market. If you got into Amazon relatively recently, you're in a strong position for your take home pay.
The backloaded stock gives you stability up front with their high signing bonus, and high growth potential for TC assuming stock growth in two years. My pay is basically equalized over 4 years at current stock prices when I began, so my expected 4 year outlook without raises/performance bonuses/stock appreciation is:
Rough numbers, you get it. Not everyone has the same deal, but from what I've seen @ Amazon this is pretty standard and honestly significantly better than having to deal with the volatility of a 1 year initial vesting cliff like most public companies.
It depends how old you are, how senior you are, and how likely you are to switch companies in a shitty situation. It works for a specific (perhaps more stable) archetype of engineering hire for sure!
At my last company, the stock price when I joined was at $150/share, it rose to over $200/share and crashed to under $30/share by the time my initial vesting date came. I lost six figures of expected TC based on my original offer (over half my total compensation). Since it was a 1 year cliff, I couldn't do anything to diversify or limit my risk because my RSUs were not mine until they vested.
Lesson learned, but I don't think there's an archetype of engineer that prefers that kind of risk profile over large cash payments each month. My downside for Y1 at Amazon is 4% of the agreed upon TC.
Oh, I COMPLETELY misread due to my biases. My fault. You are completely right.
Perhaps I'm not as good as a negotiator as I thought (or the schedules are within the past two years) b/c I haven't ever received an offer that balances the agreed upon TC as you describe. It sounds great!
I agree, I think it's mostly framed as something Amazon does to screw over employees by dangling stock they might not ever get a few years out. I'm not even arguing about the other points for the parent of my original comment, but the vesting schedule at Amazon is severely underrated in my opinion.
Amazon compensates your first year (the low % vesting year) with an entirely equivalent amount in full cash. Which is arguably better -- so I don't get your point.
Anyone who was hired over the past two years would have been more than happy to receive a large stable cash prorated signing bonus over the past two years than stock.
Equity means statistically very little in a startup. The chance of any startup succeeding where “success” means that the investors don’t lose money is 1 out of 10. The chance of a qualified person who takes a below market compensation in exchange for “equity” not being better off by working for one of the public tech companies is even slimmer.
