I'm wondering how Microsoft is responding to this. Do they expect their current Excel dominance to continue despite competitors constantly catching up to feature parity and even extra goodies, like this one?
You don't shop for Excel, you shop for Office. The contracts around O365 are pretty onerous to get out of if you're an EA customer, and the process of going away is full of pitfalls and surprises.
Google used to say that everyone who did an RFP chose Google Apps/GSuite. The problem is that nobody does that!
I wonder if the hn gods will change the title from "Why supporting Kotlin is genius move for Android" to something less sensationalist. Maybe not, as it's being posted by Steven Levy himself.
I don't think internet reputation effects are enough at this stage. The SEC's fear of everyman investors getting taken advantage of appear well-founded. Just yesterday Kickstarter started a program aimed at addressing the provenance of high profile flops that were funded and then skimmed: https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/18/kickstarter-launches-tools...
Definitely seconded. They also have an excellent pamphlet with the evidence-based advice on how to be successful at whatever job you have, including advice both general to life and specific to work: https://80000hours.org/career-guide/how-to-be-successful/
You can see it in the many comments claiming that working at an ordinary day job or donating your income to charity is akin to the social good asked for by OP. It's a failure of imagination to assume that you can do more good for the world as programmer #9001 at Facebook who donates some of his income to effective altruism than as a programmer who adds all of her value to some other cause. A good programmer making 100k contributes far more than 100k value to the company she works at, so why not find a charity to which she can contribute similarly?
It's a failure of imagination to assume that you can do more good for the world as programmer #9001 at Facebook who donates some of his income to effective altruism than as a programmer who adds all of her value to some other cause.
It's obviously a failure of imagination to believe this is not possible either. I'm not saying it is the clearly or always the best outcome, but it's clearly possible.
Consider law, for example. To use round numbers, biglaw mid-career in NYC could target $500k/yr, and plenty of lawyers are working for non-profits at $50k/yr. So one could choose to take the $500k/yr, plus donate enough to a non-profit to hire two people full time. Now you have 2x your "more than x value".
The numbers in tech are actually not much different, for certain skill sets. It's also important to remember that skill sets are not fungible this way. I could be really good at something HFT or OR companies really want, but only middling at what a non-profit needs. This affords a sort of arbitrage opportunity.
Another option - chase a high paying career for 10-15 years, retire with a modest but secure income, move to a cheaper location and volunteer the remainder of your working life to charities.
> You can see it in the many comments claiming that working at an ordinary day job or donating your income to charity is akin to the social good asked for by OP.
If OP doesn't see donating to charity as interest in the well-being of society then let's just admit that the parent isn't so much concerned about whether or not HN is interested in the well-being of society so much as if HN wants to contribute to the well-being of society in the same way the parent would. Thus, parent really should say, "HN doesnt seem to agree with my particular persuasion as to how one creates well-being in society."
Donating to charity is, almost by definition, interest in the wellbeing of society.
Also, if you're going to be paid $100k at Facebook that means the value you provide is >= $100k to Facebook. It does not mean that your work is objectively worth $100k anywhere you could go. There's some correlation, of course, but I think given the context it's an important distinction to make.
As an aside, it's entirely possible for me to imagine a scenario in which the most beneficial thing one could do for society is utilize the scale and reach of Facebook. I doubt that the vast majority of the work at Facebook is that specifically, but it's certainly possible to imagine.
The cost of the donation always exceeds the tax benefit.
People do things like setup foundations and then appoint people to work for them, but that still doesn't allow the money to be kept without paying taxes on it (the foundation has to engage in bona fide charitable activities to maintain tax status).
