The idea is that as money gets so concentrated, so does real political power. And with that concentration of political power comes extreme disregard for the opinions of the masses. I think it's a fair argument that the world has always catered to the will of rich people, but the difference now is that rich people are so unfathomably rich, and so much wealth is concentrated in so few.

I see, thank you.

More plainly on my part, though I'm worried sounds like berating when the comments are viewed consecutively: what does that have to do with the article we are discussing?

> “There was an aspect of, like, ‘Fuck the system,’” Masad said. “‘We need to remake civilization.’”

No matter what the political views, running into "real" money radicalizes most people and gives them the impression that they reached a superior evolutionary stage that uniquely entitles them... no, demands from them that they bend society and human civilization to their will, reshape it in their image, make it better because they are better. A sort of messianic complex.

This is the famous horseshoe paradox that says extremes are closer to each other than to the center. They might look completely different in their views but in reality they're back to back in the same place. 2 sides of the same coin. Different imprint, same value.

> but the difference now is that rich people are so unfathomably rich...

Compared to when? How many times in history has wealth been less concentrated?

As far as I'm aware, for almost all of history post-agriculture, wealth was highly concentrated while the average person lived in abject poverty (think: kings vs peasants). The mid-20th century was an era of mass prosperity in the US and parts of Europe, but it was an anomalous few decades, not the norm.

"The mid-20th century was an era of mass prosperity in the US and parts of Europe, but it was an anomalous few decades, not the norm."

But to those living and remembering that era - it was the norm that they (we) compare with, so it is the reference that matters.

Thank you

In the past you could find rich people on the battlefield. The last time America tried that was in Vietnam.

That is what has changed.

> How many times in history has wealth been less concentrated?

Mostly all of them! There have been periods where inequality dropped, but mostly it's been rising since at least the 1300s. I'm on mobile and can't link research, but there are a few papers that investigate this.

> As far as I'm aware, for almost all of history post-agriculture, wealth was highly concentrated while the average person lived in abject poverty (think: kings vs peasants).

And yet it was less unequal than now, an era where we've managed to use technology to concentrate wealth at an unprecedented scale. No longer is the richest person you know the king who collects your taxes next door, now it's a SV trillionaire on the other side of the world.

The comment you are responding to said their revenue is down 80%. So they did monetize training and services, and I don't see how that would have been a problem long term if AI didn't come along and make all of that unnecessary.

Yes. The point I was trying to make was that after the initial hype disappears, sales in those categories would probably taper off regardless. But it is purely my opinion.

One thing I'll definitely give Apple is that they have walked back some design decisions that were total flops in the past, such as the butterfly keyboard and the touchbar (though I found it more than a bit annoying when I'd see reviews saying how great and visionary Apple was for simply undoing bad decisions - it deserved an "OK, good" not an "OMG Apple is amazing!!)

I like this article because it points out how undeniably awful some of these decisions were in a "this signifies something is seriously, fundamentally wrong with Apple design" way. I really hope Apple listens a does a major course correction.

I misworded that. See my other comment; tldr, I want windows, tabs, etc. to be properly implemented by the OS, to a standard, rather than in many different conflicting ways.

"The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent."

But as another comment pointed out, they have tons of debt, and TFA states that their "revised" target was revised downward, meaning earlier stock valuations were priced for higher sales.

From the article:

> The compensation figures have been adjusted into 2025 dollars to account for inflation.

I skimmed but missed that, thanks! I have seen so many times where comparisons are breathlessly made without adjustment in the media, so I’m pleasantly surprised it was done here.

Most private companies don't offer RSUs.

This is not true. Most fast-growing private tech companies with valuations a fraction of OpenAIs switch from ISOs to RSUs because exercise costs start to become prohibitive.

Of course they aren’t liquid yet, but they’re still RSUs, and it’s much more common than OpenAIs profit shares structure

Yeah, agreed. It was options I always thought of as a "nice bonus", but RSUs I always thought of like cash.

The tax situation around options also makes for many more variables in the risk calculation (i.e. do I exercise as soon as I vest to reduce potential AMT, but then I may need to find sizable cash to execute), while RSUs are just much simpler

The article is talking about $1.5 million in stock-based compensation (i.e. equity) per employee. That's in addition to cash salaries.

That's certainly part of it, but in the "buying mispriced assets" category, Buffer made some very smart, large bets. During the Great Financial Crisis, BH made a $5 billion investment in Goldman Sachs that eventually made them billions in profit when everyone else was running for the hills.

I actually think this is a deal only Buffett could have made. By bringing on Buffett as an investor, it sent a signal to the market that the bank was solvent and improved confidence in the company. Another investor would not have brought the same calm so would not have had the same return even if they bought the same amount at the same time.