Which theorem are you trying to prove?

Still waiting to hear the security concerns.

Reputation vs harm ethics.

> I’d also argue that it just means that Facebook was very successful at following all the trends

Yeah foreseeing and executing on those trends is the hard part.

And from a runtime perspective it’s going to be a struct with perhaps more padding. You’ll need more details about your specific threat model to explain why that’s bad.

GCC probably has a better justification than “we are allowed to”.

I think the metaverse imagery you are referring to was about 10 years ago.

I also had a math professor who believed in extreme differences within the research community. He said only a top advisor would actually be engaging with real research and be able to bring you with them.

> More likely, get stuck a postdoc.

I still can’t understand why the outcomes for math Phds are so bad. They have extremely general intelligence which is applicable to any jobs I’ve had. I think it’s some combination of being unable to sell, unable to explain what they do, and still having their aspirations defined by professors.

Every strength is also a weakness. Small groups like that can also very effective because their trust runs deeper than work. The real lie is that thousands of unrelated strangers trying to get paid will have each other’s interests at heart.

You are spreading misinformation.

I already agreed with the correction - he has voting control.

What is still incorrect is imagining that billions of dollars gets you advisors who know how to run a company - and those people aren't just high level executives already running companies.

> you're deep in it with your belief that Zuckerberg is an unusually capable operator.

The burden is on you to show a successful CEO for over a decade is actually an idiot.