[Acute Angle]

(03-06-2013 09:35 AM)Bad Hussar Wrote:  

Never worked at someone else's startup, so can't say how much people actually work at the bigger startup companies, but have worked many corporate gigs in many different companies. I'd say your figure of 2 hours actual work per day is in the ballpark. If you are anywhere below Director level and can't compress your job into 2-3 hours of actual work per day after 3 to 6 months on the job, I'm sorry, but you suck at your job. Obviously there are exceptions (e.g assembly line workers), but most office type positions should be able to be pared down to 2-3 hours.

If this is the case (I simply don't know because I've never worked in an office) then why do bosses allow it to continue? If everyone's doing it, then they must know about it. Improved productivity per capita is a huge engine of growth, whether you're talking about companies or nations. Why would leaders allow such a waste of productive capacity?

[pozdnyshev]

(03-05-2013 07:08 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

I don't believe Yahoo is still in business. How are they making money?

Who care how they're making money? Look at their break up value:

1. Cash net of debt: $5.
2. Ownership interest in Alibaba.com & Yahoo! Japan: $6
3. Projected operating earnings for 2013 of $1.10 with cash flow of $1.80. Capital spending of $0.55 and negligible debt repayment. Thus, free cash flow (FCF) of $1.25.
4. Intangible values: famous, well-liked brand name - at least abroad.

I'm buying by the boatload.

[tpiddy]

(03-05-2013 07:08 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

I don't believe Yahoo is still in business. How are they making money?

Yahoo makes the vast majority of its money through advertising, both search and display advertising. Amazingly, they still have 10%+ search share in the US. They also have probably 10% of display advertising impressions.

They also have a stake in Yahoo Japan and Alibaba and I think some other Asian assets. At one time in the last couple years their Asian holdings alone were valued at 10 billion (Yahoo is worth 25 billion right now).

The demographics of Yahoo users in the US tend to be less educated, more poor, less coastal than Google users. People generally still use Yahoo properties for Yahoo Mail, Yahoo Finance, News/Sports (fantasy football) and other properties like Yahoo Answers, and then use Yahoo search from there.

[Timoteo]

A lot of international chicks I holler at seem to use yahoo mail and chat. I only have a yahoo email because after a cousin got married, the brother-in-law set up a pic sharing thing on yahoo, and to access/contribute, you had to sign up on yahoo. Since, I've added a few chicks here and there to chat.

[elabayarde]

(03-05-2013 07:08 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

I don't believe Yahoo is still in business. How are they making money?

Although google took over, here in the US, evidently Yahoo, is still the 1st choice of a few countries, one being Japan. This is what I found out while there. This was about 18mo ago.

[Timoteo]

(03-10-2013 09:58 PM)elabayarde Wrote:  

(03-05-2013 07:08 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

I don't believe Yahoo is still in business. How are they making money?

Although google took over, here in the US, evidently Yahoo, is still the 1st choice of a few countries, one being Japan. This is what I found out while there. This was about 18mo ago.

Yeah, I think a little American arrogance just crept in...HA HA! Just because it isn't popular here doesn't mean it isn't thriving elsewhere. Like we consider a movie to be a flop if it doesn't do well in the American market, but it might have sold extremely well in Europe.

Yahoo has eliminated a ton of features, but I'll bet some of those features are still active in other countries. MSN is killing their messenger feature everywhere except mainland China I believe, and since they acquired Skype, you can sign in with your MSN account there. I've never used Google's chat feature, but I'm curious about it.

[Mark Minter]

[quote] (03-05-2013 07:19 PM)jammer Wrote:  

[quote='Mark Minter' pid='385867' dateline='1362481454']


I can't believe Mark Minter is one of the soulless corporate drones. I'm sorry but I would much rather have the comfortable lower salary lifestyle than be an on call 24/7 slave for a corporation that doesn't care about me.[/quote]

I'm not. Those were just periods, development periods. Often they were followed by a slower time. Also it was start up behavior, the antithesis of Corporate culture. And highly technical. So you would get to approaching some deadline of a sort, design had been done, and when it is time to code and "produce the baby" even that can occur at a lesser pace. But then when it time for integration and all these ideas have to work out, and make no mistake, these endeavors have to be successful, you have to make it happen.

And when they are successful, good things start to happen for all of the men involved. I have seen the parking lot of a company change over 12 months from men having beater cars into the parking lot filling up with new ones. I have seen men's family circumstances change for the better, men who were at the doorstep of divorce to return to viability as a couple. Children start being born. Houses get bought.

I mean nothing is possibly more rewarding than seeing this transition occur and know you were a factor in it. But in order for this stuff to happen you have to produce the product and when it is time to get in on, you have to get it on. Men are depending on the outcome.

So when it is time to get it on in a start up, that deals with tech, being totally immersed in the problem, almost like an intern or resident doctor, you learn quicker.

In a normal work day you might 6 hours out of 8 that you are mentally functioning with arrival and dealing with the morning, even greeting coworkers, getting coffee, then the period before and after lunch, then the shutdown before leaving. Then you have relearn what you learned during the previous day.

But during those "push" times when you have to go at it until the solution is reached, then if you stay at it, and sometimes the pounding and pounding of trial and error, and constant immersion in the issue or the problem can yield great insights. And even when you get to go home and sleep, even while you are sleeping or getting to sleep, it invades your thoughts. And you can have these real "ah ha moments". I could always sense the technical staff was more "shit hot" after these periods.

And you need everyone there. It cuts down on the communication issues if a guy is just right over there and you can get a solution, an explanation, or a correction from him just by walking over there.

So Yahoo is in this time where they need to figure out what they will be and then quickly find technical solutions to those decisions. And the faster those technical solutions come out then the faster Yahoo can find what works.

I'm not a drone at all. The day to day mundane planned 8 hours a day wearing khakis with a badge around my neck in a corporation just kills me. I prefer the start up environment, coming to work in flip flops, having long hair, and mostly, because it is usually all men. And then it all goes to shit when it starts becoming something successful and those investors start imposing those chick based management styles with plans and meetings and numbers, and worst of all, women, all saying shit like "these men need more management". And my thoughts were "No, we need less women".

I haven't worked in a corporation for over 4 years. And I probably never will again. If any one of them searched for my name in a search engine, they would flip over the shit I have written. And I highly recommend that you leave this country, that you find some other way other than a corporation. But if you have to work in one, then inevitably, it is better to work in one that has a male ethic instead of this Gaia bullshit feminine shit.

But make no mistake. This world we live right now is a zero sum game. There is no growth like the 80s or 90s. There is no rising tide lifting all boats. And there will not be for the remainder of your life. It is a fixed or contracting pie for at least the next 20 years. If one person gains, another must lose. And if women as a gender gain, then men as a gender must lose. And the more women gain as a gender, then the greater the acceleration of the loss of men as a gender will be as those environments change from ones that are favorable or neutral to men become more and more unfavorable or hostile to men.

Inevitably men are the more flexible of the genders. We are more wired to gain status from work and we are more disposed to work and do what is necessary for work. If work insists that employees be at the office, if employers remove flexibility, and demand presence, then that favors men. And it favors men because it undoubtedly says in an inferential manner "We prefer men" without actually verbalizing it. If they didn't then they wouldn't place restrictive measures that are unattractive to women.

Women are programmed to gain social status from something other than work, and the modern fact that they seek social status or independence from income derived by work is a cultural invention. So if work squeezes women, if work doesn't allow the flexibility they seek, then they will look for situations that will. And the more they get from work, the less they seek from men.

Steve Mockey showed data that said that most of the growth in female employment in England since 1968 was in part time work. The percentage of full time female worker as a percentage of the work force had not truly grown. Even in professions like Medicine and Pharmacy, the women are attracted to those jobs because they think "I can work part time". More women join the ranks of general practitioners then specialist or surgeons exactly because they can schedule appointments, in the day, as they choose and have the flexibility for women things.

So while you may not choose to work in a corporation and you wish an easier, slower style of life, inevitably you compete against all men for the men's portion of the pie. If some men then can find their part of the pie in that corporation, at the expense of women, then that means the competitive pressure on you, from those men, diminishes. And even as a free lancer or entrepreneur you stand a far better chance of getting work or a business if that person on the other side of the desk when you pitch yourself or your product is not someone with a vagina.

Anything that is good for some men, and everything that is good for men and bad for women, is ultimately good for you.

Make no mistake. You are at war. And your enemy could give a fuck about you. She is as biased against you as the most rabid racist could ever be. She is far more sexist then you will ever be. Statistics are, she probably dislikes you on sight.

You want them to fail at every turn, and you need to root for it to happen, and if you can, then you need to make it happen.

[Rah]

Yeah I wouldn't be too excited about paying a salary or wage to a "telecommuter", either. They can do whatever they want as long as they get paid based on results rather than time. I work at home, for myself. I know how easy it is to fuck off when you have no physical oversight.

[iknowexactly]

(03-05-2013 06:04 AM)Mark Minter Wrote:  

..... but I never cheer for any women doing anything, especially in the position as a CEO. I want them all to fail miserably. ...

Make no mistake. You are at war. And your enemy could give a fuck about you. She is as biased against you as the most rabid racist could ever be.

Could there be the tiniest possibility this guy tends to bring on female hostility via his, uh, disarming charm? He sounds just like a vicious first-wave feminist. Think about that. He sounds just like an angry feminist. All you have to do is change the genders in the rants.

This appears to me to be a paranoid personality overgeneralizing from his own unfortunate experiences. Wrapped in some fairly flimsy intellectualization.

Minter wants to tell us we're "at war", and implies if you disagree you're mistaken. I see Sun TzuHe may be at war, and what kind of miserable way is that to go through life if it's not genuinely necessary? Granted a man may not want to get married in Feminist Family Court America, but you're most definitely not a Jew in 1934 Germany. One might think Minter's trying to keep others negative to make himself feel better.

What kind of small-spirited approach to women is this?

I've been pissed off at women, they do entitled, irrational shit-- but the majority are not monsters the way Minter portray it. This sounds like the definition of a self-limiting bitterness. I know bitter is feminist buzzword, but how else could you describe the tone of this guy's writing? Angry and bitter seem the best words. And as I've told the feminists who've attacked me, those should be feelings one eventually moves beyond. Unless you like living your life as a vat of acid.

To understand female selfishness without getting as pissed off as a five-year-old who's had his ice-cream taken away. you have to understand Freud's critical maxim (Italics mine ) :

"Man's primary love object is woman. Woman's primary love object is her children.( Or cats in modern America)

Women are wired to get resources from men for their children. ( Which may in some cases be your children too.) How else could an animal which has sexual reproduction evolve? Biology is destiny, not a feminist plot.

If you want to cherry-pick data to support an extreme position, who, to be honest, are the ones that beat and shoot their sex partners to death?

Murder stats: ( Are these a feminist plot too? )
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1635092

That's right--us-- men. Think how unlikeable that makes us– IF you generalize about us as a group mindlessly, in a knee-jerk fashion, in an intellectually lazy fashion, like Minter does.

Any extreme hater can get frightened, butthurt but less daring people to follow them.

One mark of paranoid people is their firm conviction that they don't need to re-evaluate anything about their position.

That's seems true about this guy. You've got it figured out exactly right, Mr. Minter? And it's blessedly simple too, thank God: Women bad, men good. And anyone who disagrees is a counter-revolutionary like in Stalinist Russia?

[guerrilla]

People complaining that they actually have to go into work to work?!!???!!

Hahahaha