Post: #201

(08-08-2017 03:25 PM)kosko Wrote:  

(08-08-2017 02:15 PM)Blaster Wrote:  

(08-08-2017 01:15 PM)Corollary Wrote:  @DamienCasanova

Google's net income the past few years:

2013: 12 billion
2014: 14 billion
2015: 16 billion
2016: 19 billlion
2017 (first two quarters): 9 billion

That doesn't seem very fragile to me. In fact, I think a company that has no survival pressure is much more to likely engage in what we've seen in this story because whatever they choose to do, they know they won't be hurt by it.

The point is the vast majority of Google's income comes from search + AdWords. Search is a fragile market, despite Google's 16-year dominance. Google emerged from a very crowded field in 2001 and virtually wiped out the competition simply by being the best.

Unlike many other services, the search has very little no hard lock-in. No network effects, no exclusive content, no barriers to exit. There's no emotional attachment to favourite chosen search engine. You can use whatever gives you the best results in the best format possible. Switching to a different search engine is a decision that can be made instantaneously by users. Google does have a massive datacenter infrastructure that gives it a huge competitive advantage, but plenty of other companies have the powerful support. Many of Google's ancillary products, such as Google Chrome, are primarily about driving search traffic, and of course, Google has massive mindshare and default browser settings. But ultimately, the main reason Google remains the most popular search engine is because it is the best product.

That's the reasoning behind why Google is more fragile than it appears. For 16 years the search+adwords teams have kept Google's search product the most popular. If Google no longer had the best engineers in the industry maintaining search+adwords, would Google be able to maintain this lead over the competition? That's the question Vox Day's blog asks. It's WAY too soon to be declaring that Google is finished, but it's interesting speculation.

I will add to this that Google is shrinking because "Searches" are becoming less relevant each year with technology advancements. Instead of somebody Google'n "Chinese Food in downtown Seattle," all they have to do is pop open Yelp, or go into Uber Eats and get food sent to their door.

Next, companies are seeing how much of a money sink it is just giving money over to Google to spam links nobody clicks on. Why waste all that time when you can go to Facebook and get specific targeted Ads to your clientele, or just go directly to the consumer with more targeted approaches via various apps, platforms (MailChimp), etc.

Google only had a scale and the monopoly of the search market, as their scale is now diminishing due to other means of reaching consumers their profits will start to dwindle ever slowly. Also, as others have mentioned, now that Google is bloated and fat Corp it isn't nimble and is now just stuck doing circle jerks and overpaying for other technology and firms to take on innovation and new leads, this is just Microsoft all over again when the Corp become so obese it can no longer move, scratch its back, or wipe its own ass. It becomes lethargic and slow and more nimble firms just come and start to eat away at the largess.

Google is still far ahead in search. Their results are quite good, or where until Trump ran for president. They've scrubbed a lot of "wrong think".

The challenge for Google is also personal assistants like Siri and Amazon Echo.

Post: #202

(08-08-2017 07:59 PM)CynicalContrarian Wrote:  Serious or satire?
Laughable either way :

screenshot of post on reddit

@polNewsForever 11m

Quote:A "woman in tech" describes how *awful* it is to have to work with men at her job, and how they make socializing at work so hard.
Pathetic.

Why is it laughable? She's right - a lot of people in tech are bland neckbeards. It doesn't read as satire to me. But there's always an out. I bet she lives in a boring area. Boring people live and work in boring areas. Move to NYC, go to a tech company, you'll meet a lot of interesting people who are socially sharp as well.

Post: #203

Because she's only considering how "awful" it is to work with them.

A lot of the best coders are extremely socially inept. They are "awful" to work with but I'd rather have them working for me anyday than some woman who is easy to get along with but more interested in the office's social scene than the actual work.

And note the language. She follows the typical female trend of being primarily concerned about her SOCIAL interactions at work rather than the actual work. That's all fine and dandy but if that's your mentality then you belong in sales, social work, or any one of the large number of other non-technical careers out there.

Quote:Google is still far ahead in search. Their results are quite good, or where until Trump ran for president. They've scrubbed a lot of "wrong think".

The challenge for Google is also personal assistants like Siri and Amazon Echo.

That pull their search results from Google?

Post: #204

I've commented quite a few times in this thread, because I find this story incredibly frightening and upsetting. Here's why:

Imagine you were doxxed. But along with that, imagine every last thing you posted on here was entirely level-headed and rational. You never once vented frustration, you never once wrote in a dramatic/emotional tone, you never once exaggerated, you never once worded something in a sloppy way that could be misinterpreted, you never once made an off-color "locker room talk" type comment. You were the most moderate, painstakingly factual poster on the entire forum.

After following this story, ask yourself: Would that be enough to prevent your reputation from being dragged through a heaping pile of shit?

It should be abundantly clear now that of course it wouldn't. At best, you'd be known as a guy who regularly partook in hateful, misogynistic 'rants' on the Internet. At worst, you'd be known as a pro-rape advocate. It wouldn't matter how fucking reasonable and rational you were here, just like it doesn't matter now in the case of this [former] Google employee.

If you endorse the type of taboo beliefs that we hold, then the only escape from a proverbial lynching is to just keep your mouth shut. We live in a world where on social media, a comment like "FUCKING FASCIST TEABAGGERS CAN GO FUCK THEMSELVES, SERIOUSLY I HOPE THEY ALL DIE IN A FIRE" gets 50 likes and and an avalanche of adoration, while posting a racial breakdown of crime statistics along with a disclaimer about how it's just for argument's sake and doesn't excuse prejudiced behavior would get you shunned.

Our only two options are to allow lies to spread unabated, or put our reputations in harm's way. There is literally nothing else we can do. No amount of politeness or rationality can save us. I think that's pretty fucking grim.

Post: #205

(08-09-2017 12:35 AM)Easy_C Wrote:  That pull their search results from Google?

Yes, but they can serve ads.

Post: #206

(08-08-2017 07:47 PM)Dusty Wrote:  And I see the role of policing speech privatized to the corporations. Our first amendment is still largely respected, so the government isn't shutting down speech. But our corporate overlords have become our Stalins.

And they do it for free!! There's always a self-righteous SJW who engages in witch-hunts for free, for feelings.

However, there are also shrewd predators masquerading as self-righteous SJWs... and they probably wants someone's job. A few centuries ago, these predators would have resorted to accusations of usury, or snitched to the Inquisition. Now they report "bros" to the utter cunts in the HR department.

This is what we get when women have disposable income until they marry at, say, 35. If they ever marry! Plus the faggots who never have kids and, thus, can have disposable income all their lives. The superannuated children (women) and the filthy degenerates (faggots) have buying power. If you want to sell a product or service, you cannot afford to offend them. They have some form of social cohesion because they believe they were oppressed for all of history. Straight men have little cohesion, because there are too many white-knighting betas who want to protect them damsels in distress. Cohesive armies usually defeat uncohesive ones.

Post: #207

(08-08-2017 11:54 PM)GreenHills Wrote:  Why is it laughable? She's right - a lot of people in tech are bland neckbeards. It doesn't read as satire to me. But there's always an out. I bet she lives in a boring area. Boring people live and work in boring areas. Move to NYC, go to a tech company, you'll meet a lot of interesting people who are socially sharp as well.

We first have to assume her long winded screed is an accurate portrayal of the situation.
Then as noted above, it appears her social & or dating prospects are of equal or greater concern than whatever direction her company is headed.
A very -self-centered- concern; which is hardly surprising for a chick...

After-all; if she's in San Francisco & supposedly surrounded by "creepy neckbeards" & gay guys.
Well one has to simply ask...

"Where have all the good men gone?"

Post: #208

(08-08-2017 12:06 PM)Kapanda Wrote:  ...
Let's not kid ourselves. The ramifications of this are vast. Google knows more about me than my family does. They are trendsetters.

Honestly, once a Google does this and gets away with it, I find nothing in my imagination that can reverse the effects of a tyrannical progressive agenda.

The rules for this forum say "no women" but honestly, you need to read between the lines.

The hidden subtext is "must have testicles".

As for people terrified of mass-doxxing, why?

The reality is that the Googlefolk are far more terrified of us than they'd ever let on. If they doxxed every right-of-far-left male in the world then we'd all suddenly realise what a pitiful handful of plebs we're actually up against. It would be like mobilising your opponent's army for him.

"Hmm", says the supermarket manager, "looks like I have to fire every shelf stacker, grocery worker and butcher in my megamart for watching pornography deemed demeaning to women."

Not fucking likely. Doxxing everyone is the same as doxxing no-one. They only people that have to worry are leading thought-criminals, and they're already committed anyway.

Post: #209

(08-08-2017 11:54 PM)GreenHills Wrote:  Why is it laughable? She's right - a lot of people in tech are bland neckbeards.

Who remembers this blog?

Quote:WHY SAN FRANCISCO REALLY IS THAT BAD

ABSTRACT | FOREWORD | PART I: GEEKS | PART II: MARRIEDS & GAYS | PART III: [ABSENT] ALPHA MALES | POSTLUDE | CALL TO ACTION | COMMENTS

A Manifesto in Parts

ABSTRACT

People Love talking about how much they Love San Francisco. But lurking under that fog of adoration is an underground world of women who can’t stand it. It’s hard to articulate: on the surface, this city is everything a woman ought to want, but there’s just something…off. This essay takes a brutally honest look at the social dynamics at play in San Francisco, and seeks to articulate why people who complain about it have a point. Part I: Geeks, explores the ramifications of wealth accumulation by men unpracticed in social graces, and forms the crux of the argument. Parts II and III look at peripheral characters, familiar from other cities but re-cast by this environment. In Part II, the married and gay men who exacerbate the feeling that one’s options are terrible; in Part III, the alpha males encouraged and allowed to extend college lifestyles in pursuit of “the next big thing.” Finally, in the Postlude, a look at those of us who remain and, in the Call to Action, what we need to do about it.

Interesting wording. "Allowed"? Allowed by whom?

Post: #210

(08-08-2017 02:35 PM)Samseau Wrote:  It appears not so much that Google is targeting the right, insomuch it is targeting anything "non-corporate." The corporate world has their own set of politics designed around profit maximization. It borrows a bit from the left and the right. The idea of the free market being King (with them at the top) is holy gospel in the corporate world, but so is diversity and antiracism (almost meaningless words).

Viper Chill wrote a compelling post entitled "How 16 Companies are Dominating the World’s Google Search Results"

http://www.viperchill.com/google-control/

Google is obviously favoring corporations. It's the number one search engine because it's (or was) the best search engine. If a better search engine shows up, Google is fucked because there's no consumer loyalty to a fucking search engine.

Before being dethroned by Google, Altavista was the top search engine. Now it doesn't even exist. People gladly switched to Google because it simply was better than Altavista. Same thing will happen to Google if a better search engine is made.

Post: #211

(08-09-2017 12:39 AM)Delta Wrote:  I've commented quite a few times in this thread, because I find this story incredibly frightening and upsetting. Here's why:

Imagine you were doxxed. But along with that, imagine every last thing you posted on here was entirely level-headed and rational. You never once vented frustration, you never once wrote in a dramatic/emotional tone, you never once exaggerated, you never once worded something in a sloppy way that could be misinterpreted, you never once made an off-color "locker room talk" type comment. You were the most moderate, painstakingly factual poster on the entire forum.

After following this story, ask yourself: Would that be enough to prevent your reputation from being dragged through a heaping pile of shit?

It should be abundantly clear now that of course it wouldn't. At best, you'd be known as a guy who regularly partook in hateful, misogynistic 'rants' on the Internet. At worst, you'd be known as a pro-rape advocate. It wouldn't matter how fucking reasonable and rational you were here, just like it doesn't matter now in the case of this [former] Google employee.

If you endorse the type of taboo beliefs that we hold, then the only escape from a proverbial lynching is to just keep your mouth shut. We live in a world where on social media, a comment like "FUCKING FASCIST TEABAGGERS CAN GO FUCK THEMSELVES, SERIOUSLY I HOPE THEY ALL DIE IN A FIRE" gets 50 likes and and an avalanche of adoration, while posting a racial breakdown of crime statistics along with a disclaimer about how it's just for argument's sake and doesn't excuse prejudiced behavior would get you shunned.

Our only two options are to allow lies to spread unabated, or put our reputations in harm's way. There is literally nothing else we can do. No amount of politeness or rationality can save us. I think that's pretty fucking grim.

(08-09-2017 01:30 AM)CynicalContrarian Wrote:  

(08-08-2017 11:54 PM)GreenHills Wrote:  Why is it laughable? She's right - a lot of people in tech are bland neckbeards. It doesn't read as satire to me. But there's always an out. I bet she lives in a boring area. Boring people live and work in boring areas. Move to NYC, go to a tech company, you'll meet a lot of interesting people who are socially sharp as well.

We first have to assume her long winded screed is an accurate portrayal of the situation.
Then as noted above, it appears her social & or dating prospects are of equal or greater concern than whatever direction her company is headed.
A very -self-centered- concern; which is hardly surprising for a chick...

After-all; if she's in San Francisco & supposedly surrounded by "creepy neckbeards" & gay guys.
Well one has to simply ask...

"Where have all the good men gone?"

At the very least it's skewed because she thinks the "creepy neckbeards" were the "cause" of Silicon Valley's "downfall".

It was a bunch of creepy neckbeards who basically created Silicon Valley. Zuckerberg's face is next to the phrase "Evil Aspie Fucker" in the dictionary. Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak, and Bill Gates were the sort of guys who got their heads stuffed down toilets at school.

Larry Page and Sergey Brin:



These guys look like they were pulling mad pussy at school or university? Page was an abused child Montessori prisoner student for Christ's sake.

The "cause" of Silicon Valley's "downfall" was when these autistic motherfuckers thought that building a beta company was the way to get bangs and get revenge on all the jocks who'd given them wedgies in the locker rooms, and therefore started hiring women.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #212

^
Also, those oh so wonderful ladies of Google & silicon valley are free to establish their own enterprises, whereby they can hire all the 'alphas' they please...

Yet I don't really intend to wait around for - "Foogle" to show up any time soon.

Post: #213

(08-09-2017 01:49 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  These guys look like they were pulling mad pussy at school or university?

I prefer the following photo:

Post: #214

(08-09-2017 01:39 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

(08-08-2017 12:06 PM)Kapanda Wrote:  ...
Let's not kid ourselves. The ramifications of this are vast. Google knows more about me than my family does. They are trendsetters.

Honestly, once a Google does this and gets away with it, I find nothing in my imagination that can reverse the effects of a tyrannical progressive agenda.

The rules for this forum say "no women" but honestly, you need to read between the lines.

The hidden subtext is "must have testicles".

As for people terrified of mass-doxxing, why?

The reality is that the Googlefolk are far more terrified of us than they'd ever let on. If they doxxed every right-of-far-left male in the world then we'd all suddenly realise what a pitiful handful of plebs we're actually up against. It would be like mobilising your opponent's army for him.

"Hmm", says the supermarket manager, "looks like I have to fire every shelf stacker, grocery worker and butcher in my megamart for watching pornography deemed demeaning to women."

Not fucking likely. Doxxing everyone is the same as doxxing no-one. They only people that have to worry are leading thought-criminals, and they're already committed anyway.

I think a more likely mass-doxxing scenario would be something in line with what they already seem to be doing, which is to have blacklists that keep non-leftists out of any professional employment where they might have a chance to influence anything. Imagine for a second that you're an arrogant soy-fed engineer poncing about in San Fransisco: your attitude towards red pilled blue collar workers would most certainly be "let them eat cake".

Just keep reminding yourself that when civilization collapses, all those precious little "cognitive elites" in SF are going to squeal like pigs when their pet Mexican housekeepers and gardeners decide to harvest their organs to sell to the Chinese.

Post: #215

(08-08-2017 07:59 PM)CynicalContrarian Wrote:  Serious or satire?
Laughable either way :



@polNewsForever 11m

Quote:A "woman in tech" describes how *awful* it is to have to work with men at her job, and how they make socializing at work so hard.
Pathetic.

Utter bullshit - Korea and Japan has IT workers that are even less socially aware than the White men.

She is disgusted while working with unattractive men who have been spoon fed a steady mental diet of Betatude. If the same men were encouraged to work out, learn Game, then you would find more attractive men.

The IT workers in the US are highly competent, but she would not realize that.

Bitches are batshit crazy by default anyway.

=-------------------

And Paracelsus put it well - All of Silicon Valley was created by intellectual "neckbeards" and semi-autistic dorks. There is nothing wrong with that - male scientifically tech interested intellectuals are not the most attractive men out there and never been that way.

The interests in itself are a bit ant-social and highly focused on certain men being into it.

There is a good reason why 50Shades of Grey features a self-made billionaire who IS NOT AN INTERNET BILLIONAIRE - despite the fact that this would be one of the few ways how a 20-something man could be making billions. The author obviously did not want him to be a Silicon Valley billionaire, because of the clear association of what a Zuckerberg or Gates look and act like. Those buggers leave women dry as the Sahara desert. But as we noted before - their sexual attractiveness is irrelevant in terms of creating great products or ushering in new scientific developments.

The female heart-throb of recent times was a sex-ex-con with an IQ below 95. That bloke is not going to do jack shit for human development, but women are all over him. Your perception of well-adjusted male is simply bullshit and as usual anti-civilization.

Post: #216

(08-09-2017 04:11 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  And Paracelsus put it well - All of Silicon Valley was created by intellectual "neckbeards" and semi-autistic dorks.

Was it? Was Robert Noyce a dorky neckbeard?



He was quite charming, apparently. OK, maybe I am cherry-picking. What about the other 7 of the famous traitorous 8?



Many of them were dorky, but wore a suit and shaved, unlike neckbeards.

So much for the myth that the Valley was founded by bearded hippies...

Post: #217

All is overstating it - many were the usual dynamic masculine entrepreneurs. I personally blame Beta-culture, feminism and soy. Know some high-IQ IT guys who later became Red Pilled, learned Game and started working out. You can easily combine those two, but that is misogyny as well.

Post: #218

You become what you fight.

Post: #219

(08-09-2017 01:39 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  The rules for this forum say "no women" but honestly, you need to read between the lines.

The hidden subtext is "must have testicles".

As for people terrified of mass-doxxing, why?

The reality is that the Googlefolk are far more terrified of us than they'd ever let on. If they doxxed every right-of-far-left male in the world then we'd all suddenly realise what a pitiful handful of plebs we're actually up against. It would be like mobilising your opponent's army for him.

"Hmm", says the supermarket manager, "looks like I have to fire every shelf stacker, grocery worker and butcher in my megamart for watching pornography deemed demeaning to women."

Not fucking likely. Doxxing everyone is the same as doxxing no-one. They only people that have to worry are leading thought-criminals, and they're already committed anyway.

They don't have to doxx. What they can do is manipulate the information you consume subtly, so you insidiously begin to accept their view of the world. A completely homogeneous electorate is highly unlikely, but one that moves further to the left is not. So then the progressive agenda gains further support, because those with the power to distort the message do so to support what they deem to be "good".

And what power would you have to stop them trying?

Post: #220

How's that working out for them so far? #Trump2016

Post: #221

They could reply in kind if they make an anti-anti list.

Call it "Ugly SJW slugs you do not want to hire". Link to their sick posts on all media.

Now if a boss was to think if they want to hire a slug with blue hair, they will have legit cause to deny them. They don't have to come out and say "you are not hired 'cos you are ugly" - they can now legit say "you are not hired because of your angry posts here (add links)"

Fight fire with nukes.

Post: #222

Quote:They could reply in kind if they make an anti-anti list.

Call it "Ugly SJW slugs you do not want to hire". Link to their sick posts on all media.

https://www.sjwlist.com/Main_Page

Post: #223

Post: #224

(08-09-2017 04:11 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  Utter bullshit - Korea and Japan has IT workers that are even less socially aware than the White men.

She is disgusted while working with unattractive men who have been spoon fed a steady mental diet of Betatude. If the same men were encouraged to work out, learn Game, then you would find more attractive men.

The IT workers in the US are highly competent, but she would not realize that.

Bitches are batshit crazy by default anyway.

"such an entity can be useful"

It's a neckbeard pretending to be a woman to manufacture neckbeard outrage.

Regardless, I live this life. I don't see see the problem. Yes, some of my coworkers go to Las Vegas and choose to eat protein bars in their hotel room, even when they could expense a good time. To say that I'm indifferent to this is an understatement. When I'm needed in the office, I show up at headquarters on time, smile, run light game on the women, dress well, have a life outside of technology, and attend the parties and happy hours.

It gets a response. I saw an article about female coworkers being creeped out by male coworkers who insist on hugging them instead of shaking hands, and I have the opposite problem: female coworkers will set my things aside, unsolicited, so they can hug more tightly when they see me. I can overhear my name coming up in the gossipy conference calls. Last time I was in, a married woman ended up literally lapping mayonnaise out of the palm of my hand with full eye contact simply because I ordered better than she did and it made her feel insecure enough to do anything deniable to seem fun by comparison.

I don't see this as a major life achievement. Running perfect game in a competitive nightclub is hard. Running mediocre game in the office is not, and unless you're so autistic as to qualify for disability payments, there's no excuse.

The flipside of this is that the kind of woman who expects her workplace to funnel fuckable men to her is likely barely fuckable herself, and likely has the same problems as the men she's complaining about. No life outside of work, poor self-care, bloody-minded, etc. I've seen plenty of this with my own eyes, whether it's the SJW with the Skrillex haircut; the fat girl who smokes too much and has a different party on the other side of the city every night because she burned all the bridges in her own neighborhood and is not getting laid unless he's drunk and high; or the woman who overestimated her value, thought a provider would take her away from all this by now, and hangs out with the gay guy from marketing because he's the only one who will still pretend to listen to her relentless, manic complaining.

I look at all this drama at Google and I genuinely believe every single one of these motherfuckers who inserted themselves into this problem should be purged. Even Damore, and I largely agree with him. A 10-page manifesto? What problem in life is most efficiently solved by a 10-page manifesto? When Google told them they can spend 20% of their time on personal projects, they meant software, not for every engineer to start dictating demands like they own the company. I would fully expect to be fired if I started carrying on like this unsolicited, even if I was in complete ideological lockstep with management.



The primary reason they're being selective here is because it's wartime in this industry. They'd conscript, impress, or enslave talent if they could get away with it. Even the misfits who have a complete mental breakdown over minor disagreements are still necessary. The premise that the industry will "boom" if they get rid of the neckbeards is only true to the extent that salaries would triple due to supply and demand. Those who are keeping their jobs will find a less pliable business environment when things shake out at some future date.

Post: #225

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agU-mHFcXdw

Jordan Peterson and the man of the hour.

So far, juiciest thing I have heard is that the meeting at Google that prompted Damore to write his memo was unusually secretive, and Damore says it is because potentially illegal and racist practices on how to increase diversity on their campus were being discussed.