all 83 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 154 points 9 months ago (4 children)

This is some true believer shit.

Google launched less than thirty years ago.

At the current rate of deterioration, it's not exactly certain to what extent the planet will be able to sustain human life, much less whether a much loathed spyware company will still be around to pay the bills.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -37 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    Is Google "much loathed"? It's thanks to Google that the world's largest browser engine and operating system are both open source. Yes we can list bad things they've done but they've also done a lot of good.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 61 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Holdovers from when "don't be evil" was still a thing.

    Both Android and Chromium are rapidly deteriorating in regards to FOSS. Yes, they are technically FOSS, but in the stranglehold of Google who keep carving away more and more freedoms.

    Just consider Google Play Integrity and Manifest v3 (in regards to e.g. Adblocking) as two obvious examples.

    If Google could, they'd instantly close the Android sources and remove the ability to adblock on Chromium.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago*

    Our minds like to process entities/companies like Google as human beings, which allows us to assign emotions to these things. But the truth is, they are nothing but a glorified Chinese room experiment.

    People made the largest browser engine and operating system, not Google. Without people, the company is nothing. A company like Google is nothing but a set of self operating rules.

    I love/loathe Google just as much as I love/loathe my weekly /tmp cleaning cron job. Even if it accidentally nukes my files, it's just doing as it's designed to do.

    You design a system to maximize shareholder value, it will do exactly that without caring a single thing about human ethics.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 125 points 9 months ago (7 children)

    A company with $130 billion in cash reserves is floating 100 year bonds.

    So much for billionaires reinvesting profits to trickle down in the economy. Now they hold onto profits, calling in suckers to bet for them and not promising results until all of them are dead.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Well, you should consider that they plan to spend ALL of that cash on hand, PLUS the amount they have to borrow. And they plan to spend all of that in 2026. Their capex expenditures are planned to exceed their estimated operating cash flow.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 116 points 9 months ago (7 children)

    100 year bonds to finance purchase of GPUs that fully depreciate in 5 years?

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 58 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    We can sell new 100 year bonds to pay the interest on the old ones.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 83 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    Can I sell 100y bonds too? It sounds like an amazing opportunity

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Sure! You can sell whatever you like! The trick is finding a buyer.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago*

    Hello good sir, would you be interested in giving me one million dollars for these exclusive, limited-time offer bonds which will mature in 100 years for a whopping 5% ROI? That's $50,000 in free money^†^. Your grandchildren will thank you!

    † not adjusted for inflation

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 9 months ago

    Well, it's not uncommon in some countries with perpetual loans for individuals, so sure!

    It's usually a matter of agreeing the right interest and offering the right security. You will get a worse deal than Google.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 53 points 9 months ago (10 children)

    The last company to do this iirc was Motorola in 1997. You can buy them on the secondary market now for about 80 cents.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 9 months ago (9 children)

    80 cents for how much initial value?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 9 months ago (8 children)

    They're actually around 80 bucks, versus an initial value of a cool hundo. But they also pay out like a 5% coupon rate annually, so if you had bought them in '97 you'd be slightly beating inflation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (5 children)

    Does that mean 5% of 80 cents or 80 bucks?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago* (3 children)

    Coupon rate is paid on the principal - assuming the hundo is accurate then it's $5/yr. If you think Motorola will be around in 14 years then you'd have your investment back. If you think they'll be around in another 70 years you get $350 + $100 because when it matures they need to repay the bond.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (1 child)

    It could be, alternatively if the company goes out of business tomorrow you lose.

    The question you need to ask yourself is how it will do vs other options, I'm no investor by any means but I'd be wondering:

    a) would an index fund beat it long term (historically you might see 7% annual gains on a fund that tracks NYSE over the same period)

    b) why is it trading below its face value - everyone has the same information about this bond in theory, therefore bond traders are aware of the same thing, if it was a great deal it would be in demand and the price would rise. So someone more experienced than us has accounted for the return and the risk/reward for them says $80 is right.

    c) does it beat inflation - $450 payoff seems nice now (assuming you save up all those $5s) 30 years ago it would've seemed even better, but $100 in 1997 has the spending power of $200 today - in 70 years time the $450 might have the equivalent spending power of $100 today. Which is to say your real terms return may only be $20 over 70 years.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    There seems to be a dispute if it's 80 cents a piece, or 80% of the initial value?

    Anyways, at 80 cents you'd get your money back in a couple of months, at $80 it's another story of course...

    Thanks for the thorough explanation!

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 35 points 9 months ago

    TO BUY HARDWARE WITH A 3 YEAR LIFESPAN. THREE YEARS. 3.

  • source
  • [–] 29 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    Selling hot air heated by wasting electricity in a data center.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    I've thought about that, actually. Could you use waste heat from a datacenter to, say, heat water for a laundromat or something?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 9 months ago

    We're currently using waste heat in Denmark from data centres (and other industry including power plants, CHP - Combined Heat & Power) in district heating. Heat up the water and pump it down pipes to people's homes.

    My home is for example heated up primarily by a cement factory, a CHP plant, and a waste incinerator.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    You would think a laundromat would use waste heat from the dryers to heat their wash water (or even the room) but I've never seen that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    This, juxtaposed with the fact that the vast majority of tech investment in the US is comically shortsighted, is only proving that irony is dead.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 9 months ago (14 children)

    They are looking for the real suckers, that think things are going to continue on like this for 100 years.

    I mean jesus, for a minute lets forget about climate change, and how increasing climate instability will fuel more political turbulence, how feedback loops are accelerating climate change beyond our predictions we are fed that were always undershoots to justify business as usual.

    Just looking at politics and business now, the rich have taken from working people more than is sustainable. Not even directly taking, stated inflation is lower than real inflation, so we take a pay cut every year on top of everything else, and on top of consolidated industries that have conspired to increase their share of profits, and a government unwilling to enforce anti trust laws. A court system unwilling to check corporate interests, but willing to allow the government to go full nazi.

    The economy is not sustainable as such. It's getting worse for working people, that can't afford professional services even with good jobs now. Let alone the low wage workers. Health care and drugs are beyond any semblance of reason. People have to give away their life savings for routine end of life medical problems that used to cost a reasonable amount of money.

    There is no way the economy holds for 100 years. A 10 year bond might even be getting a little optimistic. The government is openly corrupt, working people don't have the money to live a dignified life for the first time since the great depression in the US, and the rich are showing no sign of not taking exponentially more of economic output with their corrupt governments in tow.

    Any fool that thinks dollar amounts are a good store of value as such to receive for the next 100 years is a sucker.

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 9 months ago (13 children)

    There are some very old contracts still not terminated around. From Netherlands before William of Orange, or from England before Cromwell. Those of nation-states (WWII lend-lease of the famous ones).

    working people don’t have the money to live a dignified life for the first time since the great depression in the US,

    The US is not even close to that. Your comment be proof of that, you don't even understand how life was there and then, despite that being history of your country portrayed well enough in many movies and books.

    That said, there are, of course, complications to be expected.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 9 months ago (12 children)

    You are repeating information spoon fed to you by the ones that have changed the inflation rate to understate it, which has led us to become compound fucked to the 50th power.

    A minimum wage job, 1 minimum wage job, paid for a family in 1950. Bought a house, a cheap car, doctors, dentists, optometrists, other professional services people can't do themselves, even able to go out to eat for a burger.

    After the changes, it's become less and less true, by the 1980's it was undeniably true that wages no longer paid for what they did. By now it is a joke, they tell us our buying power has never been higher, by the numbers that is true.

    I know it feels warm and safe living up the backside of the billionaires, but there is no future going further up, come straight back and join us in the sunshine brother!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (6 children)

    A minimum wage job, 1 minimum wage job, paid for a family in 1950. Bought a house, a cheap car, doctors, dentists, optometrists, other professional services people can’t do themselves, even able to go out to eat for a burger.

    Yes, in 1950, damn right. Now do 1930.

    by the 1980’s it was undeniably true that wages no longer paid for what they did

    Still better than 1930.

    but there is no future going further up, come straight back and join us in the sunshine brother!

    I dunno, there might not be any sunshine stored for me, but it's still not 1930.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    What is your point? Mine is in the post war years we achieved the most prosperous working class the world has ever known, and the most progressive taxation which had no small part in that, and in the ensuing decades brought reason and justice even more to the economy, on a scale unprecedented before that, and the rest of the western world followed.

    That in 1971 that all changed and they've taken that all away piece by piece in an organized campaign(s). So what are you even talking about?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    Mostly for white people, and mostly because the US had built out an enormous industrial base to win WWII, and also was in the unique position of not having been destroyed by the war.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Which is the typical ad hominem to respond to the unanswerable charge that the rich have taken our middle class lifestyle and replaced it with poverty, reduced even the wealthy to just getting by status. Use emotional arguments, and slander, to obscure the issue.

    The one here, that because injustice existed it doesn't count that we all had a higher standard of living that the rich took away from us, doesn't make any sense though does it?

    Explain to me, how it negates recognizing the rich have taken from working people, because society wasn't egalitarian when working people extracted the highest standard of living ever?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    …I don’t understand your comment, I think. Is pointing out historical facts ad hominem? My (small) point was that I’m not certain that the sudden prosperity that some workers in the US enjoyed was entirely sustainable. That said, the development since the seventies or so has definitely gone hard in the other direction. I’m not competent to comment on the causes, but successful deunionization, destruction of the educational system, and overseas outsourcing of everything productive are probably in there somewhere.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    Your point, is the same as anyone that wants to discount that we have been robbed of a living wage, and the facts don't back you up, you change the subject to bigotry that existed.

    I don't understand your comment, tell me how racism that existed changes how our living wage was taken from us?

    No time in history was without some kind of prejudice, you are dancing around it now.

    Not sustainable, for working people to get a living wage you are saying. They really did a number on you huh?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    Didn't that magic 1950 salary came out of like abusing the rest of the world in different ways though? Like the petro dollar, forcing everyone to dance to your tuba and so on?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    The high living wage came from unions. And government taxing higher incomes progressively more, and taxing corporate profits more than personal paychecks, that made obscene profits progressively taxed more. It was caused by people that worked jobs being able to buy the same goods they produced, increasing output all around.

    I don't know what you are even trying to talk about here. Conflating vague foreign policy with living wages. Seeing as foreign policy got worse as living wages evaporated it would suggest you are off base there.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 21 points 9 months ago

    This is like that part in Don't look up when the Jennifer Lawrence's character tells her BF to wait 6 months before she meets his mother.

  • source
  • [–] 42 points 9 months ago (7 children)
  • [–] 9 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    Yep, but at least there's cookies. They cost $11 each.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 20 points 9 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago

    start a large company, force all the employees to use the cheap venture driven tokens now to get more done with less talent then fire everywhere when the bubble pops.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago

    Traditionally, you need to find someone to loan you money with the bond as collateral. Then you promise that person the bond as repayment of the debt + interest, with the expectation that you can re-buy the bond at a future date for much less than you could today.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 19 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    The longest portion of the offering, a 40-year bond, is expected to yield 0.95 percentage points over US Treasuries, down from 1.2 percentage points during initial talks, the people said.

    Gotta be really bearish on treasuries to consider this a good idea.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 16 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    So they know that AI is going to be unprofitable for near to medium term?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 9 months ago

    Yes, please go all in there, Google.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago

    Inverted yield curve in physical form?

  • source
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago