There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

cosmicrookie , (edited )
@cosmicrookie@lemmy.world avatar

Moneywise maybe but its losing real life value very fast!

nutsack ,

the android keyboard is still laggy as fuck so i can’t type for shit on my phone

NauticalNoodle , (edited )

So Apple became the first trillion dollar company and ~5 years later Google becomes the first A* 2 trillion dollar company. That rate of growth sounds inflated and unrealistic.

[edit] updated to reflect corrections based on u/[email protected] 's pedantry

TheRealKuni ,

Google becomes the first 2 trillion dollar company.

Except no, because Google is still worth less than nVidia, Apple, and Microsoft. So one of them was the first $2 trillion company.

FunkyMonk ,

Megacorps was so 2000late, now we are into Terracorps.

DosDude ,
@DosDude@retrolemmy.com avatar

How the hell is Nvidia worth more?

Why is this kind of market cap even possible?

This makes no sense on all fronts…

tal OP ,
@tal@lemmy.today avatar

I think that they’re considered to be well-positioned to extract a ton of money from companies that want to do parallel computing, AI and suchlike.

Crackhappy ,
@Crackhappy@lemmy.world avatar

I know why. But you’ll have to wait until next year to ask AI me why.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Between crypto mining and AI, there are a lot of companies buying Nvidia hardware.

JustARaccoon ,

They’re the main server hardware supplier around, especially when it comes to new tech areas like generative technology and things that require a lot of computation.

phoneymouse ,

NVIDIA has double the PE Ratio. It’s an indicator that people are just hyped up about AI.

brlemworld ,

Not just AI. There’s whole new verticals that use GPUs now. Specifically vehicles.

juicy ,

Tainted by the blood of Palestinian children

Chozo ,

I'm out of the loop, what's Google's involvement in that?

Opisek ,

In short, Google fires all employees that as much as think about supporting Palestine.

MakePorkGreatAgain ,

its ok to think it, but its not ok to voice it - especially on company time or using a company platform

maynarkh ,

Yet it’s somehow okay for the company to voice political opinions, and it’s also okay to voice political opinions that are in line with the CEO’s opinions on company time.

disguy_ovahea ,

It’s not okay, it’s legal. This argument gets incessantly downvoted on Lemmy. No one is arguing ethics. They’re just citing the law.

Speaking as someone who has attended many protests, it’s very important to keep the law on your side. Downvoting factual legal information is inhibiting to future protesters, and needs to stop. Share accurate information to prevent repercussions like this from happening to uninformed protesters in the future.

maynarkh ,

I used the word okay because the person above me did. It is also legal to voice political opinions, even on company time, even on company platforms, and it is also legal for the company to fire the people doing so. That said, the company is thus taking a political stance by firing those people.

That’s all I’m saying. Not that it is illegal what Google did, but that it is reprehensible.

disguy_ovahea , (edited )

That’s the misinformation that cost these people their jobs. Stop spreading it. You’re wrong, and dangerously misinforming others about US laws. You cannot voice political opinions at work if the company has a policy against the practice.

If an employee has been warned that their actions are in violation of a company policy, and that further conduct would result in termination, they are within their right to terminate. Furthermore, willful non-compliance of company policy will likely disqualify the former employee from unemployment benefits at hearing.

These are laws. You don’t have to like them, but pretending they don’t exist could cost others their jobs in the future.

maynarkh ,

That’s the misinformation that caused these people their jobs.

If I understand correctly, these people did this despite knowing the risk that they may be fired, they were not doing it believing in some nonexistent US worker’s protections keeping them employed. It’s not like they are suing Google for wrongful termination or something.

These are laws.

They are company policy. It’s not a law, it’s like three levels down, right along with the terms of service documents nobody reads and those stickers malls have on the doors to tell you that you can’t bring your dog in. It’s legal as in it does not break any laws, as the company is not an entity that can enforce laws anyway. If they broke the law, these people would be fined, or jailed. It is not even a tort, since Google can’t even sue them for this. Yes, Google can fire you with cause if you break company policy, but company policy is not law.

And I was not saying Google does not have the legal right to terminate these people. I am saying that by terminating people expressing opinions on one side, and not terminating those expressing opinions on the other, the company is taking a political stance, which is also legal, but one can find it morally objectionable.

disguy_ovahea , (edited )

When you agree to at-will employment, you agree to adhere to the conduct policy of the business. Where the law comes in, involves rightful termination. If you violate a company conduct policy (depending on the severity of misconduct, in this case it’s acceptable language), the company is required to notify you that your action is in violation of said policy, and that further action would result in termination. If you continue to violate the policy, they can legally terminate you and will likely succeed in representing their case at an unemployment hearing, leaving you without benefits.

There’s an interview with one Google employee who explained that they were notified of the conduct violation on multiple instances, as well as arrest warnings. He said he knew the police were coming to arrest them, but was surprised when he received termination notice the following day. If they had a union representative, they would have been informed on how to legally protect themselves, and probably still have their jobs.

Separately, they were arrested and charged with trespassing. If your employer asks you to leave for reasons of misconduct, and you remain on the premises, they can have you arrested for trespassing.

5wim ,

Trespassing is against the law, yep. Doesn’t look like anybody was disputing that or ignorant of anything you’re talking about. The person above was correctly making a needed distinction; “the law” has been conflated with “company policy.”

disguy_ovahea ,

The point they’re challenging, that I made, is that knowing employment law will protect your job when protesting. Your rights as an American do not supersede company policy in employment law. I’m just trying to prevent other people from losing their jobs due to misinformation giving them the impression that the Constitution will protect them from termination or loss of unemployment benefits.

5wim , (edited )

That’s the mistake you’ve been making that I pointed out: they were never challenging the fact that knowing employment law will protect your job when protesting. They were challenging a conflation of the law with company policy.

No one in this discussion thinks the Constitution will protect them from termination when the company has employment law on their side, they’re insisting against (what seemed to be your) assertions that acting against company policy was a matter of criminal law.

E: They said “It is […] legal to voice political opinions, even on company time, even on company platforms, and it is also legal for the company to fire the people doing so.” And you replied "That’s the misinformation that caused these people their jobs. Stop spreading it. You’re wrong, and dangerously misinforming others about **US laws. You cannot voice political opinions at work if the company has a policy against the practice."**They weren’t spreading misinformation, man. You, however, are using words like “you cannot” about company policy, like a bootlicker.

MikhailBoho ,

Look up Project Olympus and Israel’s use of AI (Lavender/The Gospel). Many inside the company have good reason to believe that Google/Amazon is powering the AI that is leading to the indiscriminate killings.

AnAnonymous ,

A bunch of zeros in an electronic economic system what didn’t even exist in the reality.

Glowstick ,

So you think we should only use a goods-based bartering economy?

AbidanYre ,

That’s a whole lot of sheep.

Kalkaline ,
@Kalkaline@leminal.space avatar

Why are you trying to reason with a person that says nonsensical things like that? You’re wasting your time and effort. It’s ok to just downvote and move on.

andrew ,
@andrew@lemmy.stuart.fun avatar

Some people see the value in trying. But yes, sometimes it’s hopeless.

wahming ,

There may not be any hope of changing his mind. But pointing out the ridiculousness of their comment can potentially make the difference to other people who may not have the same knowledge, or haven’t thought it through.

tal OP ,
@tal@lemmy.today avatar

Or Roman numerals!

Deceptichum ,
@Deceptichum@sh.itjust.works avatar

I tried to convert 2 trillion to Roman numerals found out they never used M, instead it’s either using an Etruscan system where you’d have something like CCCCCCIƆƆƆƆƆƆƆƆ or an X with some lines above it that I can’t write.

tal OP ,
@tal@lemmy.today avatar

Unicode has a “combining overline” character (U+305). Just stick it after the character you want. I’m on Android, and could use “UnicodePad”.

X̅

I think that trying to represent it like that would exceed the comment length limit on the Threadiverse, though.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

I like big butts!

AnAnonymous ,

At least something real would be better in my POV TBH…

Glowstick ,

I make wool.

You make bricks.

I need your bricks, but you don’t need wool.

How do i buy your bricks?

Barbarian ,
@Barbarian@sh.itjust.works avatar

Simple. You trade wool for a club, then use the club to take the bricks. Finally, use the club to take back your wool. Perfect economic system!

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Sounds like bronze age orientation day.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyu4u3VZYaQ

AnAnonymous , (edited )

I’m not talking about the concept and use of money(which it’s supposed to be backed in something real) I’m talking about the electronic system of money, which are just an unreal electronic bunch of numbers backed up in nothing, maybe if the countries economies return to be backed at least in something real it would be better for the world’s economy.

Edit: to give you a practical example, do you think if you add up the money that supposedly exists in all the banks worldwide, is there something physically real that represents that value? Or what is the same, could you buy everything that exists and still have money left over?

The actual problem it’s modern economy it’s backed in nothing else than zeros into an electronic economic system, so it will only benefit to the most wealthy 1%.

Glowstick ,

Paper money is often backed up by nothing. It’s a little scrap of paper that only has value because we’ve all agreed it has value.

AnAnonymous , (edited )

At least paper money it’s something real, what about adding and quitting zeros in a LCD panel? Using it correctly you can make countries go to the fuck and other countries have a great economy. Even more if it’s a centralized economic system.

Glowstick ,

What do you mean by “real”? The paper is literally worthless by itself. It’s only worth anything because we’ve all agreed on it. It’s the same exact situation with the digital zeros and ones.

AnAnonymous ,

Yeah I think I used the wrong term… it will be something more like physically possible than real.

Glowstick ,

The point is that if you’re doing anything besides direct bartering of physical goods, then you’re trading in something that has basically no actual inherent value. Paper bills, gold, whatever, doesn’t matter. The vast majority of its value comes from our mutual agreement that it has value as a trading device.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

I keep trying to tell gold bugs who claim that gold has inherent value that you can’t eat it and it’s impractical for building a shelter, so no it doesn’t.

MakePorkGreatAgain ,

so you only use paper money, dont get paid via direct deposit, dont use any modern banking mechanisms like debit cards linked to your bank account?

how do you even function?

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

(which it’s supposed to be backed in something real)

If you’re talking about a gold standard, no. It resulted in huge economic instability.

moneyandbanking.com/…/why-a-gold-standard-is-a-ve…

If you’re talking about an oil standard, fuck no. For obvious reasons.

If you’re talking about some other standard that wouldn’t have the gold standard problems? What would it be?

danc4498 ,

The first trillion sheep company

maynarkh ,

No, but a derivatives market that is apparently worth more than the world’s GDP times 100 really doesn’t make sense.

There is nuance between abolishing money and having Wall Street own every major company and selling parts of each many times over.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •