Roblox warm isolation script

Matomo We use Matomo cookies to improve the website performance by capturing information such as browser and device types.Until, of course, said meddling was uncovered, at which point the service, having so significantly betrayed trust, would lose a substantial number of Roblox warm isolation script and thus its lucrative and privileged place in advertising, leading to a plunge in market value.For the past decade, Facebook has focused on connecting friends and families.Please can you pass on these positive comments to Reception.The end result is something I am proud of:.The overarching story of Stratechery has been the rise and consolidation of the aforementioned Big 5 tech companies, and the entire premise of Aggregation Theory is the inevitability of centralization in a world of frictionless abundance.Perez writes in Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital about what the Maturity phase looks like:.This has opened up further opportunities for Unity: it turned out that mobile gaming had a completely different business model than PC or console gaming as well, which traditionally sold a game for a fixed price.Both took analog concepts and digitized them: Amazon was the Sears and Roebucks catalog with far more products and far faster delivery; Facebook was literally named after a physical artifact, Harvard House face books.The very process by which intense investment was made possible by concentrating income at the upper end of the spectrum becomes an obstacle for the expansion of production of Roblox warm isolation script particular product and for the attainment of full economies of scale.She has kept the kids at home participating and engaged throughout their time in isolation.
| Western House Academy

How to Get Every Badge in Warm Isolation – At the beginning of that period, the revolution is a small fact and a big promise; at the end, the new paradigm is a significant force, having overcome the resistance of the old paradigm and being ready to serve as propeller of widespread growth.It follows that a services business model — payment in exchange for service rendered, without the transfer of ownership — is a Roblox warm isolation script more natural fit for software than the transaction model characteristic of manufacturing.Email to the Principal received 9.This is the twilight of the golden age, though it shines with false splendor.Here is the most important thing: if virtual reality really is better for work, then that solves the chicken-and-egg problem.

The reason why smartphones rule the world is because they do more jobs for more people in more places than anything in the history of mankind.Facebook Home makes jobs harder to do, in effect demoting them to the folders on my third screen [in favor of social].I have long assumed that augmented reality would be a bigger opportunity than virtual reality precisely because augmented reality fits in the same lane as the smartphone ; I wrote in The Problem with Facebook and Virtual Reality :.

That is the first challenge of virtual reality: it is a destination, both in terms of a place you go virtually, but also, critically, the end result of deliberative actions in the real world.That is not necessarily a problem: going to see a movie is a choice, as is playing a video game on a console or PC.

Still, that is an order of magnitude less than the amount of revenue generated by something like smartphones.The disparity should not come as a surprise: unlike movies or video games, smartphones are an accompaniment on your way to a destination, not a destination in and of themselves.That center, though, can only ever be occupied by one thing, and the addressable market is constrained by time.Assume eight hours for sleep, eight for work, a couple of hours for, you know, actually navigating life, and that leaves at best six hours to fight for.

That is why devices intended to augment life, not replace it, have always been more compelling: every moment one is awake is worth addressing.Here Facebook the app was again a limitation: the product digitized offline relationships, which is why it grew so quickly; many of the challenges that have placed Zuckerberg in the hot seat currently stem from grafting on purely digital interactions and relationships to a product that was always more reality-rooted than its competitors.

And, needless to say, Facebook is dealing with plenty of other issues in the media and Washington D.Zuckerberg, though, is a founder, which both means he decides, thanks to his super-voting shares, and also that he has the credibility to pull investors along; more than that, though, is the clear founder ethos that Zuckerberg is bringing to Meta.

Zuckerberg told me:.I think a lot of times the biggest opportunity is you kind of just need to care about them and think that something is going to be awesome and have some conviction and build it.I care about this existing, not just virtual and augmented reality existing, but it getting built out in a way that really advances the state of human connection and enables people to be able to interact in a different way.I think that we are going to kind shift the direction of that.

In that it reminds me of an increasingly popular phrase on FinTwit: House of Zuck.It is a belief that is being tested as never before.Facebook has always been unique amongst the Big 5 tech companies because it is the one company that does not have a monopoly-like moat in the market in which it competes ; today it is also unique in that it is the only one of the five that is still founder-led.

The fact that Facebook is uniquely held responsible for the societal problems engendered by the Internet does, I suspect, stem from the fact that Zuckerberg is an obvious target.

How many people concerned about anti-vax rhetoric, for example, can even name the person in charge of YouTube, a far more potent vector? Page and Brin were wise to step aside once Google was established, to make Google a less tempting target; the same with Jeff Bezos.Kara Swisher made explicit what seems obvious: the way for Facebook to escape its current predicament is for Zuckerberg to hand the reins to someone else.Two weeks ago, in The Death and Birth of Technological Revolutions , 1 I puzzled about exactly where we were in the Age of Information and Telecommunications : were we still in the turning point, as Carlota Perez, the author of Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital believes; into the Synergy phase of Deployment, where society re-organizes itself around the new paradigm; or into the Maturity phase where the current technological era starts to fizzle out, even as the next era starts to take root?

While my tentative conclusion at the end of that piece was that we were entering the Maturity phase, over the last couple of weeks I have increasingly come to believe that we are earlier in the cycle than I suggested: we have exited the turning point, and are firmly in the Synergy phase.

Here are some brief comments about a few of these, before I spend more time on financial capital and production capital.The combination of the two make computing continuous.What is notable is that the current environment appears to be the logical endpoint of all of these changes: from batch-processing to continuous computing, from a terminal in a different room to a phone in your pocket, from a tape drive to data centers all over the globe.In line with the nature of continuous computing, the techno-economic paradigm is Everything as a Service , a concept I wrote about in Services sound a lot like software: both are intangible, both scale infinitely, and both are infinitely customizable.

It follows that a services business model — payment in exchange for service rendered, without the transfer of ownership — is a much more natural fit for software than the transaction model characteristic of manufacturing.It better matches value generated and value received — customers only pay if they use it, and producers are rewarded for making their product indispensable — and more efficiently allocates fixed costs: occasional users may be charged nothing at all, while regular users who find your software differentiated pay more than the marginal cost of providing it.

The services business model is obviously dominant in terms of software: all new software companies are SaaS companies, and old-line companies like Microsoft and Adobe have long since transformed their licensing-based business models to the SaaS business model.All of these businesses make huge investments in fixed costs building the software , and reach profitability by leveraging the zero marginal cost nature of software and the Internet to scale as large as possible as quickly as possible.

Meanwhile, all of these new companies operating with a SaaS model themselves depend on public clouds like AWS, which has the exact same model, just at even larger scale: gargantuan investments in fixed costs, made profitable by leveraging the zero marginal cost nature of software and the Internet to scale as large as possible as quickly as possible.

Of course the monetization may differ: Netflix charges a subscription, which aligns payment continuous with the delivery of value continuous.Facebook monetizes via ads:.E-commerce might seem like an exception to the services narrative, but while you do get to keep the goods that are delivered, everything about how e-commerce functions is as a service.Shopify has made huge investments in fixed costs to provide a selling platform for goods that are stored in rented space in 3PL warehouses and delivered by companies like Fedex for a fee, which is another way of saying payment for services.

Here again Amazon is the ultimate example of this model: the company has made massive investments in everything from its online store to its distribution centers to even its own planes and delivery vehicles, and an ever-increasing share of its e-commerce revenue comes from merchants effectively renting access to the entire stack; merchants are still selling goods, and consumers are still receiving them, but everything in the middle is a software-driven service with a software-derived business model.

Local services are being impacted as well: Uber, Doordash, Instacart, etc.This goes hand-in-hand with the COVID-driven rise in remote work: yes, only a portion of society has the luxury to work from anywhere probably because they work in a digital services industry , but what is notable is the transformation of manual labor, from Amazon warehouses to Doordash delivery drivers, that has arisen to serve their needs.

This was the primary focus of my previous Article.Perez has long been puzzled by the seeming lack of response by governments to the new technological paradigm; I think that response is coming into sharp focus, but it is easily missed because it is rather dystopian:.There are signs a weaker, yet in some ways similar, form of synergy has happened in the U.

The extent of this synergy only became clear in when the Snowden revelations exposed a vast web of surveillance conducted by tech and telecommunications companies in partnership with the NSA.This is not, I would note, to pass judgment as to whether those efforts are right or wrong although I am skeptical ; merely to note that there may be more evidence of synergy between the government and tech than it seems.There is also an argument to be made that the dramatic shift in monetary policy over the last 13 years — prompted by the Great Recession, but interestingly enough perfectly aligned with the smartphone era — is itself evidence of synergy: tech is inherently deflationary, which could be balancing out the inflationary potential of printing new money.

Perez explains:.Financial capital is mobile by nature while production capital is basically tied to concrete products, both by installed equipment with specific operational capabilities and by linkages in networks of suppliers, customers or distributors in particular geographic locations.Financial capital can successfully invest in a firm or a project without much knowledge of what it does or how it does it.

Its main question is potential profitability sometimes even just the perception others may have about it.For production capital, knowledge about product, process and markets is the very foundation of potential success.

The knowledge can be scientific and technical expertise or managerial experience, it can be innovative talent or entrepreneurial drive, but it will always be about specific areas and only partly mobile….All these distinctions lead to a fundamental difference in level of commitment.

Financial capital is footloose by nature; production capital has roots in an area of competence and even in a geographic region.Financial capital will flee danger; production capital has to face every storm by holding fast, ducking down or innovating its way forward or sideways.

Financial capital is critical in the Installation period of a technological revolution.Because it is mobile and seeking a return it flows to new technologies that are just emerging; in the case of the current era that meant chips, then software, then services.

Financial capital is also highly speculative, and provokes a frenzy that leads to a bubble, which is exactly what happened in the Dot Com era.Production capital, on the other hand, is harvested from profitable businesses that re-invest their earnings to improve their products and expand their markets during the Deployment period.

This has clearly been happening with the largest tech companies: one of the best investments one could have made over the last decade would have been stock in Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, and Facebook, not because they needed investor capital, but because they were so generating such exceptional returns from reinvesting their own profits.

Indeed, the fact that the big 5 tech companies were so clearly powered by production capital is one of the reasons why I have always been skeptical that we are still stuck in the Turning Point; at the same time, it is not as if the venture capital industry had disappeared.

As far as truly new ventures are concerned, innovators may have brilliant ideas for which they are willing to take huge risks, devoting their whole lives to bringing their projects to reality, but if finance is not forthcoming they can do nothing.

In the case of startups, during the 45 years after Arthur Rock founded the first venture capital partnership in , the vast majority of new firms needed significant funding from day one.Hardware startups of course needed specialized equipment, the funds to make prototypes, and then to set up actual manufacturing lines, but software startups, particularly those with any sort of online component, also needed to make significant hardware investments into servers, software that ran on said servers, and a staff to manage them.

Interestingly, just as in every other commodity market, the greatest defense for venture capitalists turns out to be brand: firms like Benchmark, Sequoia, or Andreessen Horowitz can buy into firms at superior prices because it matters to the startup to have them on their cap table.

Moreover, Andreessen Horowitz in particular has been very open about their goal to offer startups far more than money, including dedicated recruiting teams, marketing teams, and probably most usefully an active business development team.

Expect the venture capitalist return power curve to grow even steeper.Brand, though, can only resist commoditization for so long; a16z in particular has dramatically accelerated its growth, and now the most famous brand name of all is going even further.

Sequoia Partner Roelof Botha wrote yesterday on Medium :.Our industry is still beholden to a rigid year fund cycle pioneered in the s.As chips shrank and software flew to the cloud, venture capital kept operating on the business equivalent of floppy disks.Once upon a time the year fund cycle made sense.The best founders want to make a lasting impact in the world.

Neither is ours….Today, we are excited to announce our boldest innovation yet to help founders build enduring companies for the 21st century.In our U.Moving forward, our LPs will invest into The Sequoia Fund, an open-ended liquid portfolio made up of public positions in a selection of our enduring companies.

The Sequoia Fund will in turn allocate capital to a series of closed-end sub funds for venture investments at every stage from inception to IPO.Proceeds from these venture investments will flow back into The Sequoia Fund in a continuous feedback loop.

This announcement, in Perez terms, is as clear as could be: Sequoia is transforming itself from financial capital to production capital.The combination of these two factors means that SaaS companies take longer to self-fund, even if their models are proven; what Sequoia can do with their model is invest in an entire portfolio of these companies and hold onto them indefinitely, effectively recycling money from mature companies into nascent ones, much as Apple or Microsoft invests profits from their current products into the development of new ones.

Is Warby Parker a tech company? Is Carvana? Is DoorDash? The list goes on-and-on: new companies are created using technology, but of course they are! To return to The End of the Beginning :.That is exactly what happened with the automobile: its existence stopped being interesting in its own right, while the implications of its existence changed everything.That leaves the question of crypto; given its oppositional nature to the current paradigm — decentralization, encryption, and ownership — it is clearly something completely new; moreover, the capital chasing returns in crypto is clearly financial capital, not production capital.

That suggests that crypto will continue to exist in a bit of a parallel universe, which makes sense; it already has its own currencies, after all.Nor is this a bearish take: those three decades were exceptionally profitable for everyone involved — including Sequoia, which was founded in Perhaps its successor, the one that shifts to providing productive capital for crypto companies decades from now, has already been born.

Note: the following is a woefully incomplete summary of what is a brilliant — and very readable — book.In real life, the trajectory of a technological revolution is not as smooth and continuous as the stylized curve presented in Figure 3.

The process of installation of each new techno-economic paradigm in society begins with a battle against the power of the old, which is ingrained in the established production structure and embedded in the socio-cultural environment and in the institutional framework.

Only when that battle has been practically won can the paradigm really diffuse across the whole economy of the core nations and later across the world….In very broad terms, each surge goes through two periods of a very different nature, each lasting about three decades.As shown in Figure 4.It is the time when the new technologies irrupt in a maturing economy and advance like a bulldozer disrupting the established fabric and articulating new industrial networks, setting up new infrastructures and spreading new and superior ways of doing things.

At the beginning of that period, the revolution is a small fact and a big promise; at the end, the new paradigm is a significant force, having overcome the resistance of the old paradigm and being ready to serve as propeller of widespread growth.

The second half is the deployment period, when the fabric of the whole economy is rewoven and reshaped by the modernizing power of the triumphant paradigm, which then becomes normal best practice, enabling the full unfolding of its wealth generating potential.While the Installation Period begins with irruption as new technology emerges in pursuit of real world applications, it eventual transitions into a full-blown frenzy as speculative capital pursues increasingly fantastical commercial applications.

This financial frenzy is a powerful force in propagating the technological revolution, in particular its infrastructure, and enhancing — even exaggerating — the superiority of the new products, industries and generic technologies.The ostentation of success pushes the logic of the new paradigm to the fore and makes it into the contemporary ideal of vitality and dynamism.At the same time, as mentioned before, all this excitement divides society, widening the gap between rich and poor and making it less and less tenable in social terms.

The economy also becomes unsustainable, due to the appearance of two growing imbalances.One is the mismatch between the profile of demand and that of potential supply.The very process by which intense investment was made possible by concentrating income at the upper end of the spectrum becomes an obstacle for the expansion of production of any particular product and for the attainment of full economies of scale.

The other is the rift between paper values and real values.So the system is structurally unstable and cannot grow indefinitely along that path.With the collapse comes recession — sometimes depression — bringing financial capital back to reality.

This, together with mounting social pressure, creates the conditions for institutional restructuring.In this atmosphere of urgency many of the social innovations, which gradually emerged during the period of installation, are likely to be brought together with new regulation in the financial and other spheres, to create a favorable context for recoupling and full unfolding of the growth potential.

This certainly seems to describe the Dotcom Bubble, which was not only destructive to speculators directly but the economy broadly, even as its excesses, particularly in terms of broadband build-up, funded the infrastructure that would fuel the Internet over the next two decades.It just seemed clear to me that the post Dotcom Bubble era had reached its natural endpoint as far as market structure was concerned; whatever came next would look significantly different.

I respect your view.Theories belong to the public.But I see the present as the s, the turning point of the IT surge.

We have had 2 frenzies and we have not yet had a golden age.The important thing is that the previous revolutions had the Golden Age after the recession that follows the crash.And we could now perhaps have a global sustainable Golden Age.I think it is perfectly possible with the current technologies.What would be necessary to bring that Golden Age about? How do we need to tilt the playing field to make that happen?

The first thing we have to understand is that every Golden Age has had to do with social-political choices made by governments, because capitalism really only becomes legitimate when the greed of some is for the benefit of the many.

The mass production revolution brought the post-War boom.Now what happened then? If we look at the s, we have some similarities with today.We see xenophobia, we see a lot of people angry and following at that time fascism and communism, now all sorts of extremisms right and left, leaders that really offer heaven even though they cannot delivery, but the whole thing is that people are angry and disappointed.But you also have something else which is very important, which is that there is an enormous technological potential which is not being used.

Not enough investment is going in the possible innovations because there is not enough demand, and demand is normally created by some policies.But it has to be policies that are adequate for that particular revolution.So what was the previous revolution? It was about mass production.So what was the direction in which it was tilted? Well, first of all it was the World War.

And with the World War it was obvious that producing a lot of weapons made a lot of good business sense.They became cheaper and better and so on.But then at the end of the war, governments did something very important: they created a set of policies that favored suburbanization.Before the automobile you had railways, so you only had stations, and the land in-between was very cheap, it had no way of being used.

But once you have the automobile you can build cheap mass-produced houses to put lots of electrical appliances inside and the car at the door.And at the same time governments made the welfare state so that workers could buy those houses.If we had stayed in what was visible in the 30s, it was very difficult to imagine this Golden Age that came after the war.

The same thing is happening to us now.Regarding recovery in the s, one cannot look at the USA only.The war economy that began after in Germany could be seen as a synergy phase of a sort.Fortunately, the Nazis failed to conquer Europe and lost the war; otherwise, National Socialist Germany might have been the center of a longer-lasting fascist world.

At that same time, the Soviet economy too was developing very fast with another mode of growth that was also capable of intensively deploying mass production.This wide range of options for the deployment of that particular paradigm — including the Keynesian democracies that will have the USA as their core — is an indication of how much is at stake and how much is decided about the future of each country and of the world at the turning point of each surge.

Perez noted in a footnote:.In periods of paradigm shift there is a window of opportunity for real catching up as well as for forging ahead.Most of Europe, Japan and the Soviet Union, caught up in the fourth though the latter fell dramatically behind with the fifth.The only mention is in the postscript:.Yet, in the globalized world of the present paradigm, demand is also global.

The best promise of massive market expansion would seem to be in the incorporation of more and more countries to global growth, investment, production and consumption.Growth in the larger countries of the developing world, together with China, Russia and the ex-socialist group of Eastern Europe, could serve as a first tier to pull the others forward.It is quite obvious that these potentially huge markets are a very long way from saturation.

This was a view reflective of the era in which it was written, in which it was assumed that the Internet, in conjunction with globalization, would liberalize and ultimately democratize China.When China joins the W.We know how much the Internet has changed America, and we are already an open society.Imagine how much it could change China.Good luck! But I would argue to you that their effort to do that just proves how real these changes are and how much they threaten the status quo.

In the knowledge economy, economic innovation and political empowerment, whether anyone likes it or not, will inevitably go hand in hand.Perez has noted that COVID could end what she thinks is the elongated turning point era, much like World War II ended the elongated turning point era of the previous revolution at least in the U.It is notable, for example, that the tech industry has also been an essential element in various government lockdown strategies during the COVID pandemic, most obviously by making it possible for the economy to continue to function while people work from home, and also in enabling a work-from-home lifestyle via e-commerce and food delivery services, with all of the commensurate jobs entailed in providing these services.

That is a fundamental change to society that is only getting started — perhaps a new Golden Era is in fact imminent.At the same time, it is notable that crypto, the most obvious candidate for the next technological revolution is not — contra Perez — an obvious extension of the current era.

The overarching story of Stratechery has been the rise and consolidation of the aforementioned Big 5 tech companies, and the entire premise of Aggregation Theory is the inevitability of centralization in a world of frictionless abundance.Crypto, though, is about the introduction of scarcity; its payoff is decentralization, at the cost, at least for now, of convenience and speed.Perez writes in Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital about what the Maturity phase looks like:.

This is the twilight of the golden age, though it shines with false splendor.It is the drive to maturity of the paradigm and to the gradual saturation of markets.The last technology systems and the last products in each of them have very short life cycles, since accumulated experience leads to very rapid learning and saturation curves.Gradually the paradigm is taken to its ultimate consequences until it shows up its limitations.Yet, all the signs of prosperity and success are still around.

But the unfulfilled promises had been piling up, while most people nurtured the expectation of personal and social advance.The result is an increasing socio-political split…this is a time when deep questions about the system are being asked in many quarters; the climate is favorable for politics and ideological confrontations to come to the fore.

The social ferment can become intense and is sometimes quelled with social reforms.Meanwhile, in the world of big business, markets are saturating and technologies maturing, therefore profits begin to feel the productivity constriction.Ways are being sought for propping them up, which often involve concentration through mergers or acquisitions, as well as export drives and migration of activities to less-saturated markets abroad.

Their relative success makes firms amass even more money without profitable investment outlets.The search for technological solutions lifts the implicit ban on truly new technologies outside the logic of the now exhausted paradigm.

The stage is set for the decline of the whole mode of growth and for the next technological revolution.That seems awfully descriptive of the current era, no? Products that break through reach saturation in record time see TikTok reaching a billion users in three years, or DTC companies that seem to max out in only a couple of years , while the future of established companies seems to be quagmire in legislators and the courts, even as profits continue to pile up without obvious places to invest.

Moreover, to the extent the dystopian picture above is correct — that the real synergy has been between centralized governments and centralized tech companies, to the alarm of both those abroad and in the U.To be sure this framework does imply that crypto is full of scams and on its way to inflating a spectacular bubble, the aftermath of which will be painful for many, but that is both expected and increasingly borne out by the facts as well.What will matter for the future is how much infrastructure — particularly wallet installation — can be built-out in the meantime.

The time from the Intel microprocessor to the Dotcom Bubble bursting was 30 years and, it should be noted, there were a lot of smaller, more localized bubbles along the way ; Satoshi Nakamoto only published his paper in Thirteen years after was , the year the Mac was introduced; the browser was another 9 years away.On that Perez and I can certainly agree.This list is transcribed from the second Table 2.Stratechery provides analysis of the strategy and business side of technology and media, and the impact of technology on society.

So begins my about page , and there is no company that expands to fill the space afforded by that description quite like Facebook.This does, on one hand, provide for endless amounts of content, much of which, frankly, I would like to move on from; it also means that writing about one aspect of Facebook is fraught with risk: just because you defend one aspect, or attack another, does not mean one is making a comment on the entirety of the corporate beast.

Saying as much , though, did seem to prompt a lot of misunderstanding and, frustratingly, allegations of bad faith, which, optimistically, might have been alleviated by a link to an article like this one.Instead the future looks more like a rainforest , with platforms that span the globe and millions of niche businesses that sit on top.I am, given my career, biased in this regard, but the rise of platforms like Shopify , Etsy, Substack, and the App Store is evidence that new careers can be built and untold niches filled when the entire world is your addressable market.

It is difficult to overstate what a big deal this is: suddenly a Shopify merchant can compete with Amazon, a D2C startup with Unilever, or a blog with the New York Times.Facebook is also very adept at simplifying the process in exchange for more margin, of course : simply specify how much a customer is worth to you, and Facebook will deliver that customer.

It is worth noting, though, that a big chunk of the most private human readable data is content that users give Facebook themselves when they use the site; Facebook combines that with all of the data it collects in all of those connected apps and sites — which are primarily about measuring conversions — in its Data Factory to create machine-learning driven profiles that undergird its advertising.

What Facebook does not do is sell user data, not only because data undergirds its advertising business, but also because nearly all of that data would be unintelligible and worthless to any entity other than Facebook.As I noted in Privacy Fundamentalism , it is tempting to imagine this data as being something akin to a file of your life just laying around for anyone to peruse; Apple has implied precisely this with some of its recent ads.

The reality, though, is far more mundane: the nature of computers and the Internet is the spewing of data everywhere, and it is only in aggregate, in a data factory, than any insight from this collection of vectors can be derived, and only then in the context of a larger application like targeted advertising conducted at massive scale.

Moreover, I feel much better about Facebook as a data mediator than about modular advertising stacks where data really is bought and sold.I do understand that lots of folks disagree with me on this point, but again, everything is a trade-off, and I think this one is worth it.The core of my Framework for Regulating Competition on the Internet is distinguishing between platforms and Aggregators; platforms are extremely valuable, because of the opportunities they enable, but are also more subject to abuse, because companies taking advantages of those opportunities are beholden to the platform.

Aggregators, on the other hand, dominate their markets by controlling demand; suppliers are not locked in, but are rather seeking end users, who themselves can visit another website or open another app at any time.The societal value of Aggregators is lower than Platforms, but the extent to which they can inflict harm is more limited as well — competition really is just a click away.

To that end, the only extent to which Facebook is a potential antitrust concern is in terms of advertising, thanks to its massive amount of proprietary data and highly advanced data factory.Moreover, tradeoffs matter here as well: Facebook having extremely effective data is good for businesses on its platform, and there are privacy concerns with forcing Facebook to share.

Consumers are not locked into a single communications app, but can and do multi-home, and can switch between competing services with a swipe.A decade ago Facebook responded to this challenge by savvily buying upcoming communications apps like Instagram and WhatsApp; I do think that this reduced competition in the sector, particularly from an advertising perspective, and I do think there is a case for regulators to look much more critically at Aggregators buying other would-be Aggregators.

That noted, in Facebook — even with Instagram and WhatsApp — faces more competition than ever before; the market worked, and regulators are very much on guard for similar purchases.Facebook is going to have to keep users with what it has, or builds.These first three points, taken together, paint a picture of an exceptionally well-run company and a very attractive business; there is a reason why Facebook is worth around a trillion dollars.

That can be good if they make it positive.Maybe someone finds love.Maybe it even saves the life of someone on the brink of suicide.That can be bad if they make it negative.Maybe it costs a life by exposing someone to bullies.Maybe someone dies in a terrorist attack coordinated on our tools.It is perhaps the only area where the metrics do tell the true story as far as we are concerned.

Or for our stock price ha! It is literally just what we do.We connect people.All the questionable contact importing practices.All the subtle language that helps people stay searchable by friends.

All of the work we do to bring more communication in.The work we will likely have to do in China some day.All of it.The natural state of the world is not connected.It is not unified.It is fragmented by borders, languages, and increasingly by different products.The ones everyone use win.Most of us have the luxury of working in the warm glow of building products consumers love.

But make no mistake, growth tactics are how we got here.Nothing makes Facebook as valuable as having your friends on it, and no product decisions have gotten as many friends on as the ones made in growth.Not photo tagging.Not news feed.Not messenger.In almost all of our work, we have to answer hard questions about what we believe.But connecting people.In the seventeen years since Facebook was founded the number of people using the Internet has grown from around a billion people to around 4.

Of those 4.That is exactly the sort of competence I was referring to above.Here is the problem, though: it is not at all certain that the Internet is good for society.

I believe it is — I just articulated a positive vision for the democratization enabled by Facebook advertising, to take but one small example — but there are obviously massive downsides as well.This is, as I noted, an Internet problem — as Facebook is happy to tell you — but the truth is that Facebook, thanks to its uber-competent focus and execution on growth, effectively made the Internet problem a Facebook problem.

Today we are close to taking our next step.Our greatest opportunities are now global — like spreading prosperity and freedom, promoting peace and understanding, lifting people out of poverty, and accelerating science.

Our greatest challenges also need global responses — like ending terrorism, fighting climate change, and preventing pandemics.Progress now requires humanity coming together not just as cities or nations, but also as a global community.This is especially important right now.Facebook stands for bringing us closer together and building a global community.When we began, this idea was not controversial.Every year, the world got more connected and this was seen as a positive trend.

Yet now, across the world there are people left behind by globalization, and movements for withdrawing from global connection.

There are questions about whether we can make a global community that works for everyone, and whether the path ahead is to connect more or reverse course.This is a time when many of us around the world are reflecting on how we can have the most positive impact.In times like these, the most important thing we at Facebook can do is develop the social infrastructure to give people the power to build a global community that works for all of us.

This is the first, and perhaps most important, political problem Facebook has: the Internet causes real problems, and Facebook willingly made itself responsible for those problems, with no real understanding that the problems even existed.

Before that nothing mattered but growth, which produced a very curious dynamic: Facebook had tremendous power but by-and-large declined to exercise it.Given their power over what users see Facebook could, if it chose, be the most potent political force in the world.Until, of course, said meddling was uncovered, at which point the service, having so significantly betrayed trust, would lose a substantial number of users and thus its lucrative and privileged place in advertising, leading to a plunge in market value.

In short, there are no incentives for Facebook to explicitly favor any type of content beyond that which drives deeper engagement; all evidence suggests that is exactly what the service does.Said reticence, though, creates a curious dynamic in politics in particular: there is no one dominant force when it comes to the dispersal of political information, and that includes the parties described in the previous section.

Remember, in a Facebook world, information suppliers are modularized and commoditized as most people get their news from their feed.This is a big problem for the parties as described in The Party Decides.And, by extension, the most successful politicians in an aggregated world are not those who serve the party but rather those who tell voters what they most want to hear.

These dynamics were in many respects the same as the advertising dynamics I described above: on Facebook both small companies and large companies have an equal shot at customers, and both Party insiders and complete outsiders have an equal shot at voters.This was true in a way — Facebook created the conditions for someone like Trump to win — but the furor that followed suggested something much more explicit: within days the conversation was about Fake News and Russian influence being the key factors, not campaign mistakes and questionable coverage decisions, and certainly not the fundamental way that the media environment had changed.

There is another, more subtle problem related to the previous point: that Facebook power, which was latent in , and which Zuckerberg made a bid to leverage for a utopian outcome in , is increasingly irresistible to the powers that be.

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.Were the federal Constitution, therefore, really chargeable with the accumulation of power, or with a mixture of powers, having a dangerous tendency to such an accumulation, no further arguments would be necessary to inspire a universal reprobation of the system.

From that manifesto:.For the past decade, Facebook has focused on connecting friends and families.With that foundation, our next focus will be developing the social infrastructure for community — for supporting us, for keeping us safe, for informing us, for civic engagement, and for inclusion of all.This also makes the case for why I do think the world would be better off were Facebook a much smaller company: its political problems — both for the company and for the world — are irrevocably tied to its size.

And so, the most likely outcome is that Facebook simply doubles down on information control, perhaps with some regulation that is far more likely to hinder new startups — stricter limits on data, for example, or increasing liability for user-generated content — than it is to materially harm Facebook.Not much will change, at least in the short term.It turns out that when it comes to Information Technology, very little is settled; after decades of developing the Internet and realizing its economic potential, the entire world is waking up to the reality that the Internet is not simply a new medium, but a new maker of reality….

It is difficult to believe that the discussion of these implications will be reserved for posts on niche sites like Stratechery; the printing press transformed Europe from a continent of city-states loosely tied together by the Catholic Church, to a continent of nation-states with their own state churches.

To the extent the Internet is as meaningful a shift — and I think it is! And, after last week, the world is awake to the stakes; politics — not economics — will decide, and be decided by, the Internet.

Here technology itself will return to the forefront: if the priority for an increasing number of citizens, companies, and countries is to escape centralization, then the answer will not be competing centralized entities, but rather a return to open protocols crypto projects are one manifestation of this, but not the only ones.

The freedom of open source and the self-determination of crypto have always been attractive both technically and philosophically.

Centralized platforms like Facebook, though, were just so easy.That, though, is why these political shifts matter: I understand the skepticism about crypto in particular, but I think critics who see only the scams or are focused on the challenges miss the fact that countries want to be sovereign and individuals want to be free.

The more that U.This is where I am jealous of those who do nothing but attack Facebook; no nuance is, if nothing else, succinct.I admitted to my error and explained my thinking in this Update.Intel Problems — Intel is in much more danger than its profits suggest; the problems are a long time in the making, and the solution is to split up the company.

Internet 3.Even if they were right, they will still push the world to Internet 3.The Next Revolution Several posts throughout the year wrestled with the theory of the next revolution, from memes to metaverses: Internet 3.Mistakes and Memes — Information on the Internet is conveyed by memes, which can be anything and everything.

The real world impacts are only now being understood.Is crypto next? The Metaverse Several posts this year worked to define the Metaverse and understand its role in the future: The Roblox Microverse — Roblox is something new and interesting that abstracts away the platforms underneath it.Microsoft and the Metaverse — Defining the Metaverse, and explaining why Microsoft is well-placed for the virtual reality opportunity.Moderation in Infrastructure — Infrastructure companies need a distinct approach to moderation that focuses on neutrality and due process.

Antitrust, Revisited; Where Facebook Lost.A huge thank you for all your hard work with creating such an amazing online learning platform covering all areas.The amount to be done is just right, not too much and not too little.The deadlines are a great way to motivate kids too.Such an amazing experience to study online.Here are some videos and pictures of her practice.

Thank you very much to all teachers and the team of WHA.I request to continue providing online study videos at least once in a week, so we can help our kids learning home as we can follow the same pattern and syllabus.Thank you so much for your support!

I just wanted to feedback that the online learning through the virtual classroom for Year 4 has been excellent.Miss Poynter has done an exceptional job at balancing the demands of children in class and those at home.She has kept the kids at home participating and engaged throughout their time in isolation.The school and Miss Poynter have done an amazing job.

I am writing to thank the reception teachers especially Ms Rivet and Ms McClean, for the excellent singing, exercise, cooking and phonics lessons.It meant my daughter was able to see her friends and teachers and had some routine and smiles in these hard times.It is great when the teachers do videos like they have done so far, as it also makes the child feel like they are still with their teachers.

Dear Mrs.Trust this email finds you in bests of health and high spirits.At the outset, I would like to thank you and your SLT team for the quick and prompt feedback on the concern I raised few days back.I confirm each team member from the SLT team spoke to me personally and advised me of the action plan which WHA has taken to ensure the safety of the children s.Take care and best regards,.Some cookies are necessary in order to make this website function correctly.These are set by default and whilst you can block or delete them by changing your browser settings, some functionality such as being able to log in to the website will not work if you do this.

The necessary cookies set on this website are as follows:.A ‘sessionid’ token is required for logging in to the website and a ‘crfstoken’ token is used to prevent cross site request forgery.An ‘alertDismissed’ token is used to prevent certain alerts from re-appearing if they have been dismissed.

An ‘awsUploads’ object is used to facilitate file uploads.We use Matomo cookies to improve the website performance by capturing information such as browser and device types.The data from this cookie is anonymised.

Cookies are used to help distinguish between humans and bots on contact forms on this website.A cookie is used to store your cookie preferences for this website.

Interactive bar Search.Contact Us Contact Us.Home About Us Testimonials Parents Feedback received 14th July from a Reception parent re Sports Day Hello All A huge thank you for making the decision and the effort to record sports day – it was my son xxxxxx first sports day yesterday, and whilst it wasn’t the same as being there to cheer him on, it was definitely the next best thing.Thank you and please pass this on to Mrs Snowdon too.Really appreciate it.R S Parent of Reception child.

When a card just doesn’t say enough.Email to the Principal received Email to the Principal received 9.Take Care, xxxx xxxx.We as families are lucky to have this in WHA.So a big thanks to all at the school and holiday club team.Kind regards xxxx xxxx.

Email received by principal 8.Email from a Year 3 parent – received Email received to the Principal from a Year 1 parent – received Email received from a parent – received 9.

Email from a Year 1 parent – Received Year 1 Team Mon 1st Feb Hi We sometimes get so caught up with the busy life at home that we forget to give you all feedback when things are going well.

It was not easy for you all either to have to change and adapt but you all did incredibly well this year xxxxxx.Feedback from a Reception parent on Tapestry! Received Fri 11 Dec Such an amazing experience to study online.

Kind Regards, xxxxxx parent of Year 4 child.Thank you for making the hardest times seem somewhat easy for my child.Thank you to everyone for all their hardwork over these last two weeks.Kindest regards xxxxxx xxxxxx Reception class parent.Please can you pass on these positive comments to Reception.Kind regards Xxxxxx Xxxxxx parent of child in Reception class.Email received by Principal 25 November Dear Mrs.Snowden, Trust this email finds you in bests of health and high spirits.

Take care and best regards, xxxxxxx xxxxxxx parent.Information Contact Information.Remote Access for Staff Staff Email.Cookies Unfortunately not the ones with chocolate chips.Our cookies ensure you get the best experience on our website.Please make your choice!

Warm Isolation

Warm Isolation is a Roblox game in which players share a small bedroom.In this guide, we show you how to unlock all ten available badges.thanks, i tried youre script on this game thebedandbreakfastdirectory.com and it said it didnt find it on.hi, I’m a young roblox developer.I still love the window crashing joke I implemented in Warm Isolation but I’ve seen it so many times that when I.

How to use:

  1. Work in VR There have been two conventional pieces of wisdom about virtual reality that I used to agree with, but now I think both were off-base.
  2. But neither are people.
  3. Mistakes, Memes, and Foreign Ground; Coronavirus Context; The New York Times and the China Model — Considering a world of memes is uncomfortable, and perhaps explains why journalists want a world of information control.
  4. Matthew Ball about the Metaverse.
  5. All of the work we do to bring more communication in.
Secret phone number in Warm Isolation, time: 0:45

By Ben Thompson

Here is the problem, though: it is not at all certain that the Internet is good for society.Peter Jackson: Together Unity and Weta Digital can create a pathway for any artist in any industry who will now be able to leverage these incredible creative tools.

– properties

  • What will seem anachronistic is using a traditional laptop or desktop computer; those, like a headset, keep you stationary, without any of the benefits of virtual reality of course not everyone will necessarily use a fully contained headset like an Oculus; those with high computing needs would use a headset tethered to their computer.
  • It was not easy for you all either to have to change and adapt but you all did incredibly well this year xxxxxx.
  • These are set by default and whilst you can block or delete them by changing your browser settings, some functionality such as being able to log in to the website will not work if you do this.
  • R S Parent of Reception child.
  • Name changes, whether that be from Facebook to Meta or from Internet to Metaverse, are a marker of that evolution, not a punctuated equilibrium.
  • The search for technological solutions lifts the implicit ban on truly new technologies outside the logic of the now exhausted paradigm.
  • None of them, though, will be dependent on any one of those devices.
  • But, nonetheless, we ran out of time, and that was what we had to have in the movie.

In this section

In this world joining a meeting does not entail shifting your context from a computer to a headset, but simply clicking a button or entering a virtual door; now all of the advantages of virtual reality — the sense of presence in particular — comes for free.What will seem anachronistic is using a traditional laptop or desktop computer; those, like a headset, keep you stationary, without any of the benefits of virtual reality of course not everyone will necessarily use a fully contained headset like an Oculus; those with high computing needs would use a headset tethered to their computer.

Here is the most important thing: if virtual reality really is better for work, then that solves the chicken-and-egg problem.Implicit in assuming that augmented reality is more important than virtual reality is assuming that this new way of accessing the Internet will develop like mobile did.

Smartphone makers like Apple, though, had a huge advantage: people already had and wanted mobile phones; selling a device that you were going to carry anyway, but which happened to be infinitely more capable for only a few hundred more dollars, was a recipe for success in the consumer market.

Employers bought their employees computers because computers made them more productive; then, once consumers were used to using computers at work, an ever increasing number of them wanted to buy a computer for their home as well.And, as the number of home computers increased, so did the market opportunity for developers of non-work applications like games.

I suspect that this is the path that virtual reality will take.Like PCs, the first major use case will be knowledge workers using devices bought for them by their employer, eager to increase collaboration in a remote work world, and as quality increases, offer a superior working environment.Some number of those employees will be interested in using virtual reality for non-work activities as well, increasing the market for non-work applications.All of these work applications will, to be clear, still be accessible via regular computers, phones, etc.

None of them, though, will be dependent on any one of those devices.Rather these applications will be Internet-first, and thus by definition, Metaverse-first.This means that the company that is, in my opinion, the most well-placed to capitalize on the Metaverse opportunity is Microsoft.

Microsoft can accomplish this vision with Teams in large part because Microsoft makes so many of the component pieces; this gives the company a powerful selling proposition to businesses around the world whose focus is on their actual business, not on being systems integrators.

So many Silicon Valley enterprise companies miss this critical point: they obsess over the user experience of their individual application, without considering how that app fits in the context of a company for whom their app is a means to an end.This integration, though, also means that Microsoft has a big head start when it comes to the Metaverse: if the initial experience of the Metaverse is as an individual self-contained metaverse with its own data and applications, then Teams is already there.

What is not integrated is the hardware; Microsoft sells a number of third party VR headsets on said webpage, all of which have to be connected to a Windows computer.The company would do well to hold onto this approach.The analogy to the PC era, then, is Apple and the Mac, and that is a reason to be a bit bearish relative to Microsoft.Meta, however, has a big advantage that the original Mac did not: the Internet already exists.

Meta, though, should shoot for something more.First off, if I am right, and the enterprise is the first big market for VR, then some of that billions of dollars should go towards building an enterprise go-to-market team that can compete with Microsoft.This is, to be honest, probably unrealistic; Meta is starting from scratch in the enterprise space, without any of the identity and email capabilities that Google possesses, much less Microsoft.That, though, places that much more burden on Meta making the best hardware, and keeping its integrated operating system truly open.

To that end, it is worth noting that Meta is focused on its headsets being standalone, while Microsoft is still tied to Windows; this gives Meta more freedom-of-movement in terms of working with all of the platforms that already exist.What is clear, though, is that Facebook needed to change its name: no one wants to use a consumer social network for work.And, as I noted in the context of the name change , Meta is still founder-driven.

Again, though, that could mean too much focus on a consumer market that might take longer than Meta hopes to be convinced of why exactly they should buy a VR headset.Apple seems like it should be a strong competitor.The company is clearly the most advanced as far as hardware goes, particularly when it comes to powerful-yet-power-efficient chips, which is a big advantage in a power constrained environment.

Moreover, Apple can leverage the fact it controls the phone, just as it does with the Apple Watch.Perhaps a better way to state my position is that Apple is likely well placed for augmented reality, but not virtual reality, but I have changed my mind about which is more important.Valve is obviously already doing this with Steam, but there may be a place for a more general purpose alternative, probably based on Android which, I suppose, Google could build, but the company seems awfully content these days.

Snap and Niantic , meanwhile, are focused on augmented reality, but will be handicapped by the inability to effectively offload compute onto the phone in the same way Apple will be able to, and again, the trick will be getting consumers to care.

Again, though, none of this is so different from the world as it exists today, because the Internet already exists and yes, that includes crypto.Name changes, whether that be from Facebook to Meta or from Internet to Metaverse, are a marker of that evolution, not a punctuated equilibrium.

At the same time, while the mechanics may be similar, it is the differences that suggest the implications of this transformation are much more meaningful.

What is Alphabet? Alphabet is mostly a collection of companies.The largest of which, of course, is Google.This newer Google is a bit slimmed down, with the companies that are pretty far afield of our main Internet products contained in Alphabet instead.What do we mean by far afield?

Good examples are our health efforts: Life Sciences that works on the glucose-sensing contact lens , and Calico focused on longevity.Alphabet is about businesses prospering through strong leaders and independence.It is also focused: Alphabet included a host of ventures, many of which had no real connection to Google; Facebook Reality Labs is a collection of efforts, from virtual reality to augmented reality to electromyography systems, all in service to a singular vision where instead of looking at the Internet, we live in it.

There is a third comparison, though, and that is Apple generally, and Steve Jobs specifically.The Mac was a computer built for end users, but it launched in an era dominated by enterprises; that is why it was initially a failure from a business perspective, which helped drive Jobs out of the company he had founded.Fast forward 23 years and the iPhone launched in an era where end users dominated the market; it was enterprise players like Microsoft that scrambled, and failed, to catch up.

But neither are people.The reason why smartphones rule the world is because they do more jobs for more people in more places than anything in the history of mankind.Facebook Home makes jobs harder to do, in effect demoting them to the folders on my third screen [in favor of social].I have long assumed that augmented reality would be a bigger opportunity than virtual reality precisely because augmented reality fits in the same lane as the smartphone ; I wrote in The Problem with Facebook and Virtual Reality :.

That is the first challenge of virtual reality: it is a destination, both in terms of a place you go virtually, but also, critically, the end result of deliberative actions in the real world.That is not necessarily a problem: going to see a movie is a choice, as is playing a video game on a console or PC.Still, that is an order of magnitude less than the amount of revenue generated by something like smartphones.

The disparity should not come as a surprise: unlike movies or video games, smartphones are an accompaniment on your way to a destination, not a destination in and of themselves.That center, though, can only ever be occupied by one thing, and the addressable market is constrained by time.

Assume eight hours for sleep, eight for work, a couple of hours for, you know, actually navigating life, and that leaves at best six hours to fight for.That is why devices intended to augment life, not replace it, have always been more compelling: every moment one is awake is worth addressing.Here Facebook the app was again a limitation: the product digitized offline relationships, which is why it grew so quickly; many of the challenges that have placed Zuckerberg in the hot seat currently stem from grafting on purely digital interactions and relationships to a product that was always more reality-rooted than its competitors.

And, needless to say, Facebook is dealing with plenty of other issues in the media and Washington D.Zuckerberg, though, is a founder, which both means he decides, thanks to his super-voting shares, and also that he has the credibility to pull investors along; more than that, though, is the clear founder ethos that Zuckerberg is bringing to Meta.

Zuckerberg told me:.I think a lot of times the biggest opportunity is you kind of just need to care about them and think that something is going to be awesome and have some conviction and build it.

I care about this existing, not just virtual and augmented reality existing, but it getting built out in a way that really advances the state of human connection and enables people to be able to interact in a different way.

I think that we are going to kind shift the direction of that.In that it reminds me of an increasingly popular phrase on FinTwit: House of Zuck.It is a belief that is being tested as never before.Facebook has always been unique amongst the Big 5 tech companies because it is the one company that does not have a monopoly-like moat in the market in which it competes ; today it is also unique in that it is the only one of the five that is still founder-led.

The fact that Facebook is uniquely held responsible for the societal problems engendered by the Internet does, I suspect, stem from the fact that Zuckerberg is an obvious target.How many people concerned about anti-vax rhetoric, for example, can even name the person in charge of YouTube, a far more potent vector? Page and Brin were wise to step aside once Google was established, to make Google a less tempting target; the same with Jeff Bezos.

Kara Swisher made explicit what seems obvious: the way for Facebook to escape its current predicament is for Zuckerberg to hand the reins to someone else.Two weeks ago, in The Death and Birth of Technological Revolutions , 1 I puzzled about exactly where we were in the Age of Information and Telecommunications : were we still in the turning point, as Carlota Perez, the author of Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital believes; into the Synergy phase of Deployment, where society re-organizes itself around the new paradigm; or into the Maturity phase where the current technological era starts to fizzle out, even as the next era starts to take root?

While my tentative conclusion at the end of that piece was that we were entering the Maturity phase, over the last couple of weeks I have increasingly come to believe that we are earlier in the cycle than I suggested: we have exited the turning point, and are firmly in the Synergy phase.Here are some brief comments about a few of these, before I spend more time on financial capital and production capital.The combination of the two make computing continuous.

What is notable is that the current environment appears to be the logical endpoint of all of these changes: from batch-processing to continuous computing, from a terminal in a different room to a phone in your pocket, from a tape drive to data centers all over the globe.In line with the nature of continuous computing, the techno-economic paradigm is Everything as a Service , a concept I wrote about in Services sound a lot like software: both are intangible, both scale infinitely, and both are infinitely customizable.

It follows that a services business model — payment in exchange for service rendered, without the transfer of ownership — is a much more natural fit for software than the transaction model characteristic of manufacturing.It better matches value generated and value received — customers only pay if they use it, and producers are rewarded for making their product indispensable — and more efficiently allocates fixed costs: occasional users may be charged nothing at all, while regular users who find your software differentiated pay more than the marginal cost of providing it.

The services business model is obviously dominant in terms of software: all new software companies are SaaS companies, and old-line companies like Microsoft and Adobe have long since transformed their licensing-based business models to the SaaS business model.

All of these businesses make huge investments in fixed costs building the software , and reach profitability by leveraging the zero marginal cost nature of software and the Internet to scale as large as possible as quickly as possible.Meanwhile, all of these new companies operating with a SaaS model themselves depend on public clouds like AWS, which has the exact same model, just at even larger scale: gargantuan investments in fixed costs, made profitable by leveraging the zero marginal cost nature of software and the Internet to scale as large as possible as quickly as possible.

Of course the monetization may differ: Netflix charges a subscription, which aligns payment continuous with the delivery of value continuous.Facebook monetizes via ads:.E-commerce might seem like an exception to the services narrative, but while you do get to keep the goods that are delivered, everything about how e-commerce functions is as a service.

Shopify has made huge investments in fixed costs to provide a selling platform for goods that are stored in rented space in 3PL warehouses and delivered by companies like Fedex for a fee, which is another way of saying payment for services.Here again Amazon is the ultimate example of this model: the company has made massive investments in everything from its online store to its distribution centers to even its own planes and delivery vehicles, and an ever-increasing share of its e-commerce revenue comes from merchants effectively renting access to the entire stack; merchants are still selling goods, and consumers are still receiving them, but everything in the middle is a software-driven service with a software-derived business model.

Local services are being impacted as well: Uber, Doordash, Instacart, etc.This goes hand-in-hand with the COVID-driven rise in remote work: yes, only a portion of society has the luxury to work from anywhere probably because they work in a digital services industry , but what is notable is the transformation of manual labor, from Amazon warehouses to Doordash delivery drivers, that has arisen to serve their needs.

This was the primary focus of my previous Article.Perez has long been puzzled by the seeming lack of response by governments to the new technological paradigm; I think that response is coming into sharp focus, but it is easily missed because it is rather dystopian:.There are signs a weaker, yet in some ways similar, form of synergy has happened in the U.The extent of this synergy only became clear in when the Snowden revelations exposed a vast web of surveillance conducted by tech and telecommunications companies in partnership with the NSA.

This is not, I would note, to pass judgment as to whether those efforts are right or wrong although I am skeptical ; merely to note that there may be more evidence of synergy between the government and tech than it seems.There is also an argument to be made that the dramatic shift in monetary policy over the last 13 years — prompted by the Great Recession, but interestingly enough perfectly aligned with the smartphone era — is itself evidence of synergy: tech is inherently deflationary, which could be balancing out the inflationary potential of printing new money.

Perez explains:.Financial capital is mobile by nature while production capital is basically tied to concrete products, both by installed equipment with specific operational capabilities and by linkages in networks of suppliers, customers or distributors in particular geographic locations.Financial capital can successfully invest in a firm or a project without much knowledge of what it does or how it does it.Its main question is potential profitability sometimes even just the perception others may have about it.

For production capital, knowledge about product, process and markets is the very foundation of potential success.The knowledge can be scientific and technical expertise or managerial experience, it can be innovative talent or entrepreneurial drive, but it will always be about specific areas and only partly mobile….

All these distinctions lead to a fundamental difference in level of commitment.Financial capital is footloose by nature; production capital has roots in an area of competence and even in a geographic region.Financial capital will flee danger; production capital has to face every storm by holding fast, ducking down or innovating its way forward or sideways.

Financial capital is critical in the Installation period of a technological revolution.Because it is mobile and seeking a return it flows to new technologies that are just emerging; in the case of the current era that meant chips, then software, then services.Financial capital is also highly speculative, and provokes a frenzy that leads to a bubble, which is exactly what happened in the Dot Com era.Production capital, on the other hand, is harvested from profitable businesses that re-invest their earnings to improve their products and expand their markets during the Deployment period.

This has clearly been happening with the largest tech companies: one of the best investments one could have made over the last decade would have been stock in Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, and Facebook, not because they needed investor capital, but because they were so generating such exceptional returns from reinvesting their own profits.Indeed, the fact that the big 5 tech companies were so clearly powered by production capital is one of the reasons why I have always been skeptical that we are still stuck in the Turning Point; at the same time, it is not as if the venture capital industry had disappeared.

As far as truly new ventures are concerned, innovators may have brilliant ideas for which they are willing to take huge risks, devoting their whole lives to bringing their projects to reality, but if finance is not forthcoming they can do nothing.

In the case of startups, during the 45 years after Arthur Rock founded the first venture capital partnership in , the vast majority of new firms needed significant funding from day one.

Hardware startups of course needed specialized equipment, the funds to make prototypes, and then to set up actual manufacturing lines, but software startups, particularly those with any sort of online component, also needed to make significant hardware investments into servers, software that ran on said servers, and a staff to manage them.Interestingly, just as in every other commodity market, the greatest defense for venture capitalists turns out to be brand: firms like Benchmark, Sequoia, or Andreessen Horowitz can buy into firms at superior prices because it matters to the startup to have them on their cap table.

Moreover, Andreessen Horowitz in particular has been very open about their goal to offer startups far more than money, including dedicated recruiting teams, marketing teams, and probably most usefully an active business development team.

Expect the venture capitalist return power curve to grow even steeper.Brand, though, can only resist commoditization for so long; a16z in particular has dramatically accelerated its growth, and now the most famous brand name of all is going even further.Sequoia Partner Roelof Botha wrote yesterday on Medium :.Our industry is still beholden to a rigid year fund cycle pioneered in the s.As chips shrank and software flew to the cloud, venture capital kept operating on the business equivalent of floppy disks.

Once upon a time the year fund cycle made sense.The best founders want to make a lasting impact in the world.Neither is ours….Today, we are excited to announce our boldest innovation yet to help founders build enduring companies for the 21st century.

In our U.Moving forward, our LPs will invest into The Sequoia Fund, an open-ended liquid portfolio made up of public positions in a selection of our enduring companies.The Sequoia Fund will in turn allocate capital to a series of closed-end sub funds for venture investments at every stage from inception to IPO.Proceeds from these venture investments will flow back into The Sequoia Fund in a continuous feedback loop.

This announcement, in Perez terms, is as clear as could be: Sequoia is transforming itself from financial capital to production capital.The combination of these two factors means that SaaS companies take longer to self-fund, even if their models are proven; what Sequoia can do with their model is invest in an entire portfolio of these companies and hold onto them indefinitely, effectively recycling money from mature companies into nascent ones, much as Apple or Microsoft invests profits from their current products into the development of new ones.

Is Warby Parker a tech company? Is Carvana? Is DoorDash? The list goes on-and-on: new companies are created using technology, but of course they are! To return to The End of the Beginning :.That is exactly what happened with the automobile: its existence stopped being interesting in its own right, while the implications of its existence changed everything.

That leaves the question of crypto; given its oppositional nature to the current paradigm — decentralization, encryption, and ownership — it is clearly something completely new; moreover, the capital chasing returns in crypto is clearly financial capital, not production capital.

That suggests that crypto will continue to exist in a bit of a parallel universe, which makes sense; it already has its own currencies, after all.Nor is this a bearish take: those three decades were exceptionally profitable for everyone involved — including Sequoia, which was founded in Perhaps its successor, the one that shifts to providing productive capital for crypto companies decades from now, has already been born.Note: the following is a woefully incomplete summary of what is a brilliant — and very readable — book.

In real life, the trajectory of a technological revolution is not as smooth and continuous as the stylized curve presented in Figure 3.The process of installation of each new techno-economic paradigm in society begins with a battle against the power of the old, which is ingrained in the established production structure and embedded in the socio-cultural environment and in the institutional framework.

Only when that battle has been practically won can the paradigm really diffuse across the whole economy of the core nations and later across the world….In very broad terms, each surge goes through two periods of a very different nature, each lasting about three decades.

As shown in Figure 4.It is the time when the new technologies irrupt in a maturing economy and advance like a bulldozer disrupting the established fabric and articulating new industrial networks, setting up new infrastructures and spreading new and superior ways of doing things.

At the beginning of that period, the revolution is a small fact and a big promise; at the end, the new paradigm is a significant force, having overcome the resistance of the old paradigm and being ready to serve as propeller of widespread growth.The second half is the deployment period, when the fabric of the whole economy is rewoven and reshaped by the modernizing power of the triumphant paradigm, which then becomes normal best practice, enabling the full unfolding of its wealth generating potential.

While the Installation Period begins with irruption as new technology emerges in pursuit of real world applications, it eventual transitions into a full-blown frenzy as speculative capital pursues increasingly fantastical commercial applications.This financial frenzy is a powerful force in propagating the technological revolution, in particular its infrastructure, and enhancing — even exaggerating — the superiority of the new products, industries and generic technologies.

The ostentation of success pushes the logic of the new paradigm to the fore and makes it into the contemporary ideal of vitality and dynamism.At the same time, as mentioned before, all this excitement divides society, widening the gap between rich and poor and making it less and less tenable in social terms.The economy also becomes unsustainable, due to the appearance of two growing imbalances.One is the mismatch between the profile of demand and that of potential supply.

The very process by which intense investment was made possible by concentrating income at the upper end of the spectrum becomes an obstacle for the expansion of production of any particular product and for the attainment of full economies of scale.The other is the rift between paper values and real values.So the system is structurally unstable and cannot grow indefinitely along that path.With the collapse comes recession — sometimes depression — bringing financial capital back to reality.

This, together with mounting social pressure, creates the conditions for institutional restructuring.In this atmosphere of urgency many of the social innovations, which gradually emerged during the period of installation, are likely to be brought together with new regulation in the financial and other spheres, to create a favorable context for recoupling and full unfolding of the growth potential.

This certainly seems to describe the Dotcom Bubble, which was not only destructive to speculators directly but the economy broadly, even as its excesses, particularly in terms of broadband build-up, funded the infrastructure that would fuel the Internet over the next two decades.It just seemed clear to me that the post Dotcom Bubble era had reached its natural endpoint as far as market structure was concerned; whatever came next would look significantly different.

I respect your view.Theories belong to the public.But I see the present as the s, the turning point of the IT surge.We have had 2 frenzies and we have not yet had a golden age.The important thing is that the previous revolutions had the Golden Age after the recession that follows the crash.

And we could now perhaps have a global sustainable Golden Age.I think it is perfectly possible with the current technologies.

What would be necessary to bring that Golden Age about? How do we need to tilt the playing field to make that happen?

The first thing we have to understand is that every Golden Age has had to do with social-political choices made by governments, because capitalism really only becomes legitimate when the greed of some is for the benefit of the many.The mass production revolution brought the post-War boom.Now what happened then? If we look at the s, we have some similarities with today.

We see xenophobia, we see a lot of people angry and following at that time fascism and communism, now all sorts of extremisms right and left, leaders that really offer heaven even though they cannot delivery, but the whole thing is that people are angry and disappointed.But you also have something else which is very important, which is that there is an enormous technological potential which is not being used.

Not enough investment is going in the possible innovations because there is not enough demand, and demand is normally created by some policies.But it has to be policies that are adequate for that particular revolution.So what was the previous revolution? It was about mass production.

So what was the direction in which it was tilted? Well, first of all it was the World War.And with the World War it was obvious that producing a lot of weapons made a lot of good business sense.They became cheaper and better and so on.But then at the end of the war, governments did something very important: they created a set of policies that favored suburbanization.Before the automobile you had railways, so you only had stations, and the land in-between was very cheap, it had no way of being used.

But once you have the automobile you can build cheap mass-produced houses to put lots of electrical appliances inside and the car at the door.And at the same time governments made the welfare state so that workers could buy those houses.If we had stayed in what was visible in the 30s, it was very difficult to imagine this Golden Age that came after the war.

The same thing is happening to us now.Regarding recovery in the s, one cannot look at the USA only.The war economy that began after in Germany could be seen as a synergy phase of a sort.Fortunately, the Nazis failed to conquer Europe and lost the war; otherwise, National Socialist Germany might have been the center of a longer-lasting fascist world.At that same time, the Soviet economy too was developing very fast with another mode of growth that was also capable of intensively deploying mass production.

This wide range of options for the deployment of that particular paradigm — including the Keynesian democracies that will have the USA as their core — is an indication of how much is at stake and how much is decided about the future of each country and of the world at the turning point of each surge.Perez noted in a footnote:.In periods of paradigm shift there is a window of opportunity for real catching up as well as for forging ahead.

Most of Europe, Japan and the Soviet Union, caught up in the fourth though the latter fell dramatically behind with the fifth.The only mention is in the postscript:.Yet, in the globalized world of the present paradigm, demand is also global.

The best promise of massive market expansion would seem to be in the incorporation of more and more countries to global growth, investment, production and consumption.

Growth in the larger countries of the developing world, together with China, Russia and the ex-socialist group of Eastern Europe, could serve as a first tier to pull the others forward.It is quite obvious that these potentially huge markets are a very long way from saturation.This was a view reflective of the era in which it was written, in which it was assumed that the Internet, in conjunction with globalization, would liberalize and ultimately democratize China.

When China joins the W.We know how much the Internet has changed America, and we are already an open society.Imagine how much it could change China.

Good luck! But I would argue to you that their effort to do that just proves how real these changes are and how much they threaten the status quo.In the knowledge economy, economic innovation and political empowerment, whether anyone likes it or not, will inevitably go hand in hand.Perez has noted that COVID could end what she thinks is the elongated turning point era, much like World War II ended the elongated turning point era of the previous revolution at least in the U.

It is notable, for example, that the tech industry has also been an essential element in various government lockdown strategies during the COVID pandemic, most obviously by making it possible for the economy to continue to function while people work from home, and also in enabling a work-from-home lifestyle via e-commerce and food delivery services, with all of the commensurate jobs entailed in providing these services.That is a fundamental change to society that is only getting started — perhaps a new Golden Era is in fact imminent.

At the same time, it is notable that crypto, the most obvious candidate for the next technological revolution is not — contra Perez — an obvious extension of the current era.The overarching story of Stratechery has been the rise and consolidation of the aforementioned Big 5 tech companies, and the entire premise of Aggregation Theory is the inevitability of centralization in a world of frictionless abundance.

Crypto, though, is about the introduction of scarcity; its payoff is decentralization, at the cost, at least for now, of convenience and speed.Perez writes in Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital about what the Maturity phase looks like:.

This is the twilight of the golden age, though it shines with false splendor.It is the drive to maturity of the paradigm and to the gradual saturation of markets.The last technology systems and the last products in each of them have very short life cycles, since accumulated experience leads to very rapid learning and saturation curves.Gradually the paradigm is taken to its ultimate consequences until it shows up its limitations.

Yet, all the signs of prosperity and success are still around.But the unfulfilled promises had been piling up, while most people nurtured the expectation of personal and social advance.The result is an increasing socio-political split…this is a time when deep questions about the system are being asked in many quarters; the climate is favorable for politics and ideological confrontations to come to the fore.

The social ferment can become intense and is sometimes quelled with social reforms.Meanwhile, in the world of big business, markets are saturating and technologies maturing, therefore profits begin to feel the productivity constriction.

Ways are being sought for propping them up, which often involve concentration through mergers or acquisitions, as well as export drives and migration of activities to less-saturated markets abroad.Their relative success makes firms amass even more money without profitable investment outlets.The search for technological solutions lifts the implicit ban on truly new technologies outside the logic of the now exhausted paradigm.The stage is set for the decline of the whole mode of growth and for the next technological revolution.

That seems awfully descriptive of the current era, no? Products that break through reach saturation in record time see TikTok reaching a billion users in three years, or DTC companies that seem to max out in only a couple of years , while the future of established companies seems to be quagmire in legislators and the courts, even as profits continue to pile up without obvious places to invest.

Moreover, to the extent the dystopian picture above is correct — that the real synergy has been between centralized governments and centralized tech companies, to the alarm of both those abroad and in the U.

To be sure this framework does imply that crypto is full of scams and on its way to inflating a spectacular bubble, the aftermath of which will be painful for many, but that is both expected and increasingly borne out by the facts as well.What will matter for the future is how much infrastructure — particularly wallet installation — can be built-out in the meantime.The time from the Intel microprocessor to the Dotcom Bubble bursting was 30 years and, it should be noted, there were a lot of smaller, more localized bubbles along the way ; Satoshi Nakamoto only published his paper in Thirteen years after was , the year the Mac was introduced; the browser was another 9 years away.

On that Perez and I can certainly agree.This list is transcribed from the second Table 2.Stratechery provides analysis of the strategy and business side of technology and media, and the impact of technology on society.

So begins my about page , and there is no company that expands to fill the space afforded by that description quite like Facebook.This does, on one hand, provide for endless amounts of content, much of which, frankly, I would like to move on from; it also means that writing about one aspect of Facebook is fraught with risk: just because you defend one aspect, or attack another, does not mean one is making a comment on the entirety of the corporate beast.

Saying as much , though, did seem to prompt a lot of misunderstanding and, frustratingly, allegations of bad faith, which, optimistically, might have been alleviated by a link to an article like this one.

Instead the future looks more like a rainforest , with platforms that span the globe and millions of niche businesses that sit on top.I am, given my career, biased in this regard, but the rise of platforms like Shopify , Etsy, Substack, and the App Store is evidence that new careers can be built and untold niches filled when the entire world is your addressable market.

It is difficult to overstate what a big deal this is: suddenly a Shopify merchant can compete with Amazon, a D2C startup with Unilever, or a blog with the New York Times.Facebook is also very adept at simplifying the process in exchange for more margin, of course : simply specify how much a customer is worth to you, and Facebook will deliver that customer.It is worth noting, though, that a big chunk of the most private human readable data is content that users give Facebook themselves when they use the site; Facebook combines that with all of the data it collects in all of those connected apps and sites — which are primarily about measuring conversions — in its Data Factory to create machine-learning driven profiles that undergird its advertising.

What Facebook does not do is sell user data, not only because data undergirds its advertising business, but also because nearly all of that data would be unintelligible and worthless to any entity other than Facebook.

As I noted in Privacy Fundamentalism , it is tempting to imagine this data as being something akin to a file of your life just laying around for anyone to peruse; Apple has implied precisely this with some of its recent ads.The reality, though, is far more mundane: the nature of computers and the Internet is the spewing of data everywhere, and it is only in aggregate, in a data factory, than any insight from this collection of vectors can be derived, and only then in the context of a larger application like targeted advertising conducted at massive scale.

Moreover, I feel much better about Facebook as a data mediator than about modular advertising stacks where data really is bought and sold.I do understand that lots of folks disagree with me on this point, but again, everything is a trade-off, and I think this one is worth it.

The core of my Framework for Regulating Competition on the Internet is distinguishing between platforms and Aggregators; platforms are extremely valuable, because of the opportunities they enable, but are also more subject to abuse, because companies taking advantages of those opportunities are beholden to the platform.Aggregators, on the other hand, dominate their markets by controlling demand; suppliers are not locked in, but are rather seeking end users, who themselves can visit another website or open another app at any time.

The societal value of Aggregators is lower than Platforms, but the extent to which they can inflict harm is more limited as well — competition really is just a click away.To that end, the only extent to which Facebook is a potential antitrust concern is in terms of advertising, thanks to its massive amount of proprietary data and highly advanced data factory.

Moreover, tradeoffs matter here as well: Facebook having extremely effective data is good for businesses on its platform, and there are privacy concerns with forcing Facebook to share.

Consumers are not locked into a single communications app, but can and do multi-home, and can switch between competing services with a swipe.A decade ago Facebook responded to this challenge by savvily buying upcoming communications apps like Instagram and WhatsApp; I do think that this reduced competition in the sector, particularly from an advertising perspective, and I do think there is a case for regulators to look much more critically at Aggregators buying other would-be Aggregators.

That noted, in Facebook — even with Instagram and WhatsApp — faces more competition than ever before; the market worked, and regulators are very much on guard for similar purchases.

Facebook is going to have to keep users with what it has, or builds.These first three points, taken together, paint a picture of an exceptionally well-run company and a very attractive business; there is a reason why Facebook is worth around a trillion dollars.That can be good if they make it positive.Maybe someone finds love.Maybe it even saves the life of someone on the brink of suicide.

That can be bad if they make it negative.Maybe it costs a life by exposing someone to bullies.Maybe someone dies in a terrorist attack coordinated on our tools.It is perhaps the only area where the metrics do tell the true story as far as we are concerned.

Or for our stock price ha! It is literally just what we do.We connect people.All the questionable contact importing practices.All the subtle language that helps people stay searchable by friends.All of the work we do to bring more communication in.

The work we will likely have to do in China some day.All of it.The natural state of the world is not connected.

It is not unified.It is fragmented by borders, languages, and increasingly by different products.The ones everyone use win.Most of us have the luxury of working in the warm glow of building products consumers love.But make no mistake, growth tactics are how we got here.Nothing makes Facebook as valuable as having your friends on it, and no product decisions have gotten as many friends on as the ones made in growth.

Not photo tagging.Not news feed.Not messenger.In almost all of our work, we have to answer hard questions about what we believe.But connecting people.In the seventeen years since Facebook was founded the number of people using the Internet has grown from around a billion people to around 4.Of those 4.That is exactly the sort of competence I was referring to above.Here is the problem, though: it is not at all certain that the Internet is good for society.

I believe it is — I just articulated a positive vision for the democratization enabled by Facebook advertising, to take but one small example — but there are obviously massive downsides as well.

This is, as I noted, an Internet problem — as Facebook is happy to tell you — but the truth is that Facebook, thanks to its uber-competent focus and execution on growth, effectively made the Internet problem a Facebook problem.Today we are close to taking our next step.Our greatest opportunities are now global — like spreading prosperity and freedom, promoting peace and understanding, lifting people out of poverty, and accelerating science.

Our greatest challenges also need global responses — like ending terrorism, fighting climate change, and preventing pandemics.Progress now requires humanity coming together not just as cities or nations, but also as a global community.A beautiful floral display received as thanks from a parent as feedback for our fantastic board games club.May My son xxxxxx left Western House last year and went on to the Westgate school.I thought I would update you on his progress after speaking to all his teachers last night at his first parents evening since being there.

He has some amazing feedback.In French and music particularly.He achieved advancing in French in his assessment, his teacher is so impressed with him.I strongly believe his love of French comes from his time at Western House and Madame Elliot who taught him over the years, she made learning a different language fun and clearly gave XXXXXX the passion to do well in the subject.

It was amazing to hear how well he is doing and I just wanted to thank not only Madame Elliot and Mr Robinson but all the staff at Western House Academy for instilling values and work ethic into xxxxxx and helping to shape him into the hardworking, polite young man.

I am certain that this has helped my sons own acceptance of the situation.In addition, the home schooling provided during the latest lockdown has been exceptional.The regular communication we received and the timetable that we were sent made it easier for me to support my son whilst also working from home.I appreciate each and every one of them because they have given my son the very best start to his education — they are all amazing, its obvious how hard they all work and how much they care.

My son has thrived here under your excellent leadership.Dear Mrs Snowden, sending you feedback as requested by Mrs Thomson She enjoys dodgeball and canon ball games, her favourite sport is gymnastics.The best part is to dress up in her own outfit each day and meet friends outside the classroom.

I also seen dancing and music this time, which shows great atmosphere created for the kids.The only thing I would like to see that it would be 5 days a week rather then 4 days next time.The only negative comment is that it is a shame its not for 2 weeks! However, I appreciate that the teachers need a break too.

My kids xxxx and xxxx are always buzzing about holiday club and never stop talking about there day.Dear Mrs Snowden, Just wanted to say what a lovely welcome back with the balloons this morning.

Thank you and all your staff for all there hard work over the last few months.Everyone has worked so hard.Best wishes xxxxxxxx.I also wanted to take this opportunity to say how amazing Miss Edwards has been.She is so helpful and supportive and has really made xxxxx transition back into school smooth and stress free.

Although xxxx may be suppressing them to some extent, I think it is mostly down to the positive experience and reassurance xxxx has had from the staff.In addition, the fact that Miss Majid has taken the time to check in on xxxxx well-being is above anything I was expecting, so again, thank you.All in all, with the wonderful welcome Monday morning with the balloons, music and party atmosphere, you have all made a week we were dreading something to be celebrated instead.

Hi just wanted to say you all do an amazing job all year around and have been brilliant throughout the Pandemic.The Welcome back on Monday with balloons and music was a fantastic idea to help the kids gets back.My friends were impressed to.We were amazed with how much effort the school had made with the balloons, the welcome sign and the uplifting music being played on the playground too this morning.

The atmosphere was so lovely.Thank you all so much for all that you do, your efforts are hugely appreciated.We sometimes get so caught up with the busy life at home that we forget to give you all feedback when things are going well.Human nature to always report when something is not going well.But the way the home learning has been structured during this 2nd lockdown has been great.The easy to follow pre recorded lessons are amazing as opposed to live zoom lessons some schools do as it allows us to go through the lesson at our pace, pause and explain further anything we need to and we can balance our work and home learning accordingly.

I have enjoyed following the lessons myself as they have given me a great insight into exactly what and how the children are taught at school.

The amount of work being set is just right.Couple of lighter days that allow the children to choose something to do or work on their project passport is great.The amount of time and effort you all put into properly going through the emails and the children’s work and the detailed replies is excellent.I know xxxxxx for sure always gets really happy reading the feedback and looks forward to your emails.Zoom calls are fun and every child is given a chance to talk and engage.

Overall we are very very happy with the system and very thankful for the incredible effort the teachers are putting into making home schooling effective and fun.It was not easy for you all either to have to change and adapt but you all did incredibly well this year.

The online learning set up for year 4 work is amazing! She loved joining the call today, she was so happy with having seen her friends.A huge thank you for all your hard work with creating such an amazing online learning platform covering all areas.The amount to be done is just right, not too much and not too little.The deadlines are a great way to motivate kids too.Such an amazing experience to study online.Here are some videos and pictures of her practice.Thank you very much to all teachers and the team of WHA.

I request to continue providing online study videos at least once in a week, so we can help our kids learning home as we can follow the same pattern and syllabus.Thank you so much for your support! I just wanted to feedback that the online learning through the virtual classroom for Year 4 has been excellent.Miss Poynter has done an exceptional job at balancing the demands of children in class and those at home.She has kept the kids at home participating and engaged throughout their time in isolation.

The school and Miss Poynter have done an amazing job.I am writing to thank the reception teachers especially Ms Rivet and Ms McClean, for the excellent singing, exercise, cooking and phonics lessons.

It meant my daughter was able to see her friends and teachers and had some routine and smiles in these hard times.

: The company would do well to hold onto this approach.

Good luck! Think back to those communities I described above that provide so much meaning to my life: those are almost completely online, but the sense of belonging is very real to me.Not news feed.

  • Email received from a parent – received 9.
  • Thank you and please pass this on to Mrs Snowdon too.
  • And, of course, Apple and Google would take their share.
  • Again, to use myself as an example, my physical reality is defined by my life in Taiwan with my family; the majority of my time and energy, though, is online, defined by interactions with friends, co-workers, and customers scattered all over the world.
  • This is a place with no need for traditional money, or traditional art; the native solution is obviously superior.

It is also focused: Alphabet included a host of ventures, many of which had no real connection to Google; Facebook Reality Labs is a collection of efforts, from virtual reality to augmented reality to electromyography systems, all in service to a singular vision where instead of looking at the Internet, we live in it.There is a third comparison, though, and that is Apple generally, and Steve Jobs specifically.

The Mac was a computer built for end users, but it launched in an era dominated by enterprises; that is why it was initially a failure from a business perspective, which helped drive Jobs out of the company he had founded.Fast forward 23 years and the iPhone launched in an era where end users dominated the market; it was enterprise players like Microsoft that scrambled, and failed, to catch up.

But neither are people.The reason why smartphones rule the world is because they do more jobs for more people in more places than anything in the history of mankind.Facebook Home makes jobs harder to do, in effect demoting them to the folders on my third screen [in favor of social].I have long assumed that augmented reality would be a bigger opportunity than virtual reality precisely because augmented reality fits in the same lane as the smartphone ; I wrote in The Problem with Facebook and Virtual Reality :.

That is the first challenge of virtual reality: it is a destination, both in terms of a place you go virtually, but also, critically, the end result of deliberative actions in the real world.That is not necessarily a problem: going to see a movie is a choice, as is playing a video game on a console or PC.

Still, that is an order of magnitude less than the amount of revenue generated by something like smartphones.The disparity should not come as a surprise: unlike movies or video games, smartphones are an accompaniment on your way to a destination, not a destination in and of themselves.That center, though, can only ever be occupied by one thing, and the addressable market is constrained by time.

Assume eight hours for sleep, eight for work, a couple of hours for, you know, actually navigating life, and that leaves at best six hours to fight for.That is why devices intended to augment life, not replace it, have always been more compelling: every moment one is awake is worth addressing.Here Facebook the app was again a limitation: the product digitized offline relationships, which is why it grew so quickly; many of the challenges that have placed Zuckerberg in the hot seat currently stem from grafting on purely digital interactions and relationships to a product that was always more reality-rooted than its competitors.

And, needless to say, Facebook is dealing with plenty of other issues in the media and Washington D.Zuckerberg, though, is a founder, which both means he decides, thanks to his super-voting shares, and also that he has the credibility to pull investors along; more than that, though, is the clear founder ethos that Zuckerberg is bringing to Meta.Zuckerberg told me:.I think a lot of times the biggest opportunity is you kind of just need to care about them and think that something is going to be awesome and have some conviction and build it.

I care about this existing, not just virtual and augmented reality existing, but it getting built out in a way that really advances the state of human connection and enables people to be able to interact in a different way.I think that we are going to kind shift the direction of that.

In that it reminds me of an increasingly popular phrase on FinTwit: House of Zuck.It is a belief that is being tested as never before.Facebook has always been unique amongst the Big 5 tech companies because it is the one company that does not have a monopoly-like moat in the market in which it competes ; today it is also unique in that it is the only one of the five that is still founder-led.

The fact that Facebook is uniquely held responsible for the societal problems engendered by the Internet does, I suspect, stem from the fact that Zuckerberg is an obvious target.How many people concerned about anti-vax rhetoric, for example, can even name the person in charge of YouTube, a far more potent vector?

Page and Brin were wise to step aside once Google was established, to make Google a less tempting target; the same with Jeff Bezos.Kara Swisher made explicit what seems obvious: the way for Facebook to escape its current predicament is for Zuckerberg to hand the reins to someone else.

Two weeks ago, in The Death and Birth of Technological Revolutions , 1 I puzzled about exactly where we were in the Age of Information and Telecommunications : were we still in the turning point, as Carlota Perez, the author of Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital believes; into the Synergy phase of Deployment, where society re-organizes itself around the new paradigm; or into the Maturity phase where the current technological era starts to fizzle out, even as the next era starts to take root?

While my tentative conclusion at the end of that piece was that we were entering the Maturity phase, over the last couple of weeks I have increasingly come to believe that we are earlier in the cycle than I suggested: we have exited the turning point, and are firmly in the Synergy phase.

Here are some brief comments about a few of these, before I spend more time on financial capital and production capital.The combination of the two make computing continuous.What is notable is that the current environment appears to be the logical endpoint of all of these changes: from batch-processing to continuous computing, from a terminal in a different room to a phone in your pocket, from a tape drive to data centers all over the globe.

In line with the nature of continuous computing, the techno-economic paradigm is Everything as a Service , a concept I wrote about in Services sound a lot like software: both are intangible, both scale infinitely, and both are infinitely customizable.It follows that a services business model — payment in exchange for service rendered, without the transfer of ownership — is a much more natural fit for software than the transaction model characteristic of manufacturing.It better matches value generated and value received — customers only pay if they use it, and producers are rewarded for making their product indispensable — and more efficiently allocates fixed costs: occasional users may be charged nothing at all, while regular users who find your software differentiated pay more than the marginal cost of providing it.

The services business model is obviously dominant in terms of software: all new software companies are SaaS companies, and old-line companies like Microsoft and Adobe have long since transformed their licensing-based business models to the SaaS business model.

All of these businesses make huge investments in fixed costs building the software , and reach profitability by leveraging the zero marginal cost nature of software and the Internet to scale as large as possible as quickly as possible.

Meanwhile, all of these new companies operating with a SaaS model themselves depend on public clouds like AWS, which has the exact same model, just at even larger scale: gargantuan investments in fixed costs, made profitable by leveraging the zero marginal cost nature of software and the Internet to scale as large as possible as quickly as possible.

Of course the monetization may differ: Netflix charges a subscription, which aligns payment continuous with the delivery of value continuous.Facebook monetizes via ads:.E-commerce might seem like an exception to the services narrative, but while you do get to keep the goods that are delivered, everything about how e-commerce functions is as a service.Shopify has made huge investments in fixed costs to provide a selling platform for goods that are stored in rented space in 3PL warehouses and delivered by companies like Fedex for a fee, which is another way of saying payment for services.

Here again Amazon is the ultimate example of this model: the company has made massive investments in everything from its online store to its distribution centers to even its own planes and delivery vehicles, and an ever-increasing share of its e-commerce revenue comes from merchants effectively renting access to the entire stack; merchants are still selling goods, and consumers are still receiving them, but everything in the middle is a software-driven service with a software-derived business model.

Local services are being impacted as well: Uber, Doordash, Instacart, etc.This goes hand-in-hand with the COVID-driven rise in remote work: yes, only a portion of society has the luxury to work from anywhere probably because they work in a digital services industry , but what is notable is the transformation of manual labor, from Amazon warehouses to Doordash delivery drivers, that has arisen to serve their needs.

This was the primary focus of my previous Article.Perez has long been puzzled by the seeming lack of response by governments to the new technological paradigm; I think that response is coming into sharp focus, but it is easily missed because it is rather dystopian:.There are signs a weaker, yet in some ways similar, form of synergy has happened in the U.

The extent of this synergy only became clear in when the Snowden revelations exposed a vast web of surveillance conducted by tech and telecommunications companies in partnership with the NSA.This is not, I would note, to pass judgment as to whether those efforts are right or wrong although I am skeptical ; merely to note that there may be more evidence of synergy between the government and tech than it seems.

There is also an argument to be made that the dramatic shift in monetary policy over the last 13 years — prompted by the Great Recession, but interestingly enough perfectly aligned with the smartphone era — is itself evidence of synergy: tech is inherently deflationary, which could be balancing out the inflationary potential of printing new money.Perez explains:.Financial capital is mobile by nature while production capital is basically tied to concrete products, both by installed equipment with specific operational capabilities and by linkages in networks of suppliers, customers or distributors in particular geographic locations.

Financial capital can successfully invest in a firm or a project without much knowledge of what it does or how it does it.Its main question is potential profitability sometimes even just the perception others may have about it.

For production capital, knowledge about product, process and markets is the very foundation of potential success.The knowledge can be scientific and technical expertise or managerial experience, it can be innovative talent or entrepreneurial drive, but it will always be about specific areas and only partly mobile….All these distinctions lead to a fundamental difference in level of commitment.Financial capital is footloose by nature; production capital has roots in an area of competence and even in a geographic region.

Financial capital will flee danger; production capital has to face every storm by holding fast, ducking down or innovating its way forward or sideways.Financial capital is critical in the Installation period of a technological revolution.

Because it is mobile and seeking a return it flows to new technologies that are just emerging; in the case of the current era that meant chips, then software, then services.

Financial capital is also highly speculative, and provokes a frenzy that leads to a bubble, which is exactly what happened in the Dot Com era.Production capital, on the other hand, is harvested from profitable businesses that re-invest their earnings to improve their products and expand their markets during the Deployment period.

This has clearly been happening with the largest tech companies: one of the best investments one could have made over the last decade would have been stock in Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, and Facebook, not because they needed investor capital, but because they were so generating such exceptional returns from reinvesting their own profits.

Indeed, the fact that the big 5 tech companies were so clearly powered by production capital is one of the reasons why I have always been skeptical that we are still stuck in the Turning Point; at the same time, it is not as if the venture capital industry had disappeared.

As far as truly new ventures are concerned, innovators may have brilliant ideas for which they are willing to take huge risks, devoting their whole lives to bringing their projects to reality, but if finance is not forthcoming they can do nothing.In the case of startups, during the 45 years after Arthur Rock founded the first venture capital partnership in , the vast majority of new firms needed significant funding from day one.

Hardware startups of course needed specialized equipment, the funds to make prototypes, and then to set up actual manufacturing lines, but software startups, particularly those with any sort of online component, also needed to make significant hardware investments into servers, software that ran on said servers, and a staff to manage them.Interestingly, just as in every other commodity market, the greatest defense for venture capitalists turns out to be brand: firms like Benchmark, Sequoia, or Andreessen Horowitz can buy into firms at superior prices because it matters to the startup to have them on their cap table.

Moreover, Andreessen Horowitz in particular has been very open about their goal to offer startups far more than money, including dedicated recruiting teams, marketing teams, and probably most usefully an active business development team.Expect the venture capitalist return power curve to grow even steeper.

Brand, though, can only resist commoditization for so long; a16z in particular has dramatically accelerated its growth, and now the most famous brand name of all is going even further.

Sequoia Partner Roelof Botha wrote yesterday on Medium :.Our industry is still beholden to a rigid year fund cycle pioneered in the s.As chips shrank and software flew to the cloud, venture capital kept operating on the business equivalent of floppy disks.

Once upon a time the year fund cycle made sense.The best founders want to make a lasting impact in the world.Neither is ours….Today, we are excited to announce our boldest innovation yet to help founders build enduring companies for the 21st century.In our U.Moving forward, our LPs will invest into The Sequoia Fund, an open-ended liquid portfolio made up of public positions in a selection of our enduring companies.The Sequoia Fund will in turn allocate capital to a series of closed-end sub funds for venture investments at every stage from inception to IPO.

Proceeds from these venture investments will flow back into The Sequoia Fund in a continuous feedback loop.This announcement, in Perez terms, is as clear as could be: Sequoia is transforming itself from financial capital to production capital.The combination of these two factors means that SaaS companies take longer to self-fund, even if their models are proven; what Sequoia can do with their model is invest in an entire portfolio of these companies and hold onto them indefinitely, effectively recycling money from mature companies into nascent ones, much as Apple or Microsoft invests profits from their current products into the development of new ones.

Is Warby Parker a tech company? Is Carvana? Is DoorDash? The list goes on-and-on: new companies are created using technology, but of course they are! To return to The End of the Beginning :.That is exactly what happened with the automobile: its existence stopped being interesting in its own right, while the implications of its existence changed everything.

That leaves the question of crypto; given its oppositional nature to the current paradigm — decentralization, encryption, and ownership — it is clearly something completely new; moreover, the capital chasing returns in crypto is clearly financial capital, not production capital.That suggests that crypto will continue to exist in a bit of a parallel universe, which makes sense; it already has its own currencies, after all.

Nor is this a bearish take: those three decades were exceptionally profitable for everyone involved — including Sequoia, which was founded in Perhaps its successor, the one that shifts to providing productive capital for crypto companies decades from now, has already been born.Note: the following is a woefully incomplete summary of what is a brilliant — and very readable — book.In real life, the trajectory of a technological revolution is not as smooth and continuous as the stylized curve presented in Figure 3.

The process of installation of each new techno-economic paradigm in society begins with a battle against the power of the old, which is ingrained in the established production structure and embedded in the socio-cultural environment and in the institutional framework.Only when that battle has been practically won can the paradigm really diffuse across the whole economy of the core nations and later across the world….In very broad terms, each surge goes through two periods of a very different nature, each lasting about three decades.

As shown in Figure 4.It is the time when the new technologies irrupt in a maturing economy and advance like a bulldozer disrupting the established fabric and articulating new industrial networks, setting up new infrastructures and spreading new and superior ways of doing things.At the beginning of that period, the revolution is a small fact and a big promise; at the end, the new paradigm is a significant force, having overcome the resistance of the old paradigm and being ready to serve as propeller of widespread growth.

The second half is the deployment period, when the fabric of the whole economy is rewoven and reshaped by the modernizing power of the triumphant paradigm, which then becomes normal best practice, enabling the full unfolding of its wealth generating potential.While the Installation Period begins with irruption as new technology emerges in pursuit of real world applications, it eventual transitions into a full-blown frenzy as speculative capital pursues increasingly fantastical commercial applications.

This financial frenzy is a powerful force in propagating the technological revolution, in particular its infrastructure, and enhancing — even exaggerating — the superiority of the new products, industries and generic technologies.

The ostentation of success pushes the logic of the new paradigm to the fore and makes it into the contemporary ideal of vitality and dynamism.At the same time, as mentioned before, all this excitement divides society, widening the gap between rich and poor and making it less and less tenable in social terms.

The economy also becomes unsustainable, due to the appearance of two growing imbalances.One is the mismatch between the profile of demand and that of potential supply.

The very process by which intense investment was made possible by concentrating income at the upper end of the spectrum becomes an obstacle for the expansion of production of any particular product and for the attainment of full economies of scale.The other is the rift between paper values and real values.So the system is structurally unstable and cannot grow indefinitely along that path.

With the collapse comes recession — sometimes depression — bringing financial capital back to reality.This, together with mounting social pressure, creates the conditions for institutional restructuring.

In this atmosphere of urgency many of the social innovations, which gradually emerged during the period of installation, are likely to be brought together with new regulation in the financial and other spheres, to create a favorable context for recoupling and full unfolding of the growth potential.This certainly seems to describe the Dotcom Bubble, which was not only destructive to speculators directly but the economy broadly, even as its excesses, particularly in terms of broadband build-up, funded the infrastructure that would fuel the Internet over the next two decades.

It just seemed clear to me that the post Dotcom Bubble era had reached its natural endpoint as far as market structure was concerned; whatever came next would look significantly different.

I respect your view.Theories belong to the public.But I see the present as the s, the turning point of the IT surge.We have had 2 frenzies and we have not yet had a golden age.The important thing is that the previous revolutions had the Golden Age after the recession that follows the crash.And we could now perhaps have a global sustainable Golden Age.I think it is perfectly possible with the current technologies.

What would be necessary to bring that Golden Age about? How do we need to tilt the playing field to make that happen? The first thing we have to understand is that every Golden Age has had to do with social-political choices made by governments, because capitalism really only becomes legitimate when the greed of some is for the benefit of the many.

The mass production revolution brought the post-War boom.Now what happened then? If we look at the s, we have some similarities with today.We see xenophobia, we see a lot of people angry and following at that time fascism and communism, now all sorts of extremisms right and left, leaders that really offer heaven even though they cannot delivery, but the whole thing is that people are angry and disappointed.

But you also have something else which is very important, which is that there is an enormous technological potential which is not being used.Not enough investment is going in the possible innovations because there is not enough demand, and demand is normally created by some policies.But it has to be policies that are adequate for that particular revolution.

So what was the previous revolution? It was about mass production.So what was the direction in which it was tilted? Well, first of all it was the World War.

And with the World War it was obvious that producing a lot of weapons made a lot of good business sense.They became cheaper and better and so on.But then at the end of the war, governments did something very important: they created a set of policies that favored suburbanization.

Before the automobile you had railways, so you only had stations, and the land in-between was very cheap, it had no way of being used.But once you have the automobile you can build cheap mass-produced houses to put lots of electrical appliances inside and the car at the door.

And at the same time governments made the welfare state so that workers could buy those houses.If we had stayed in what was visible in the 30s, it was very difficult to imagine this Golden Age that came after the war.

The same thing is happening to us now.Regarding recovery in the s, one cannot look at the USA only.The war economy that began after in Germany could be seen as a synergy phase of a sort.Fortunately, the Nazis failed to conquer Europe and lost the war; otherwise, National Socialist Germany might have been the center of a longer-lasting fascist world.At that same time, the Soviet economy too was developing very fast with another mode of growth that was also capable of intensively deploying mass production.

This wide range of options for the deployment of that particular paradigm — including the Keynesian democracies that will have the USA as their core — is an indication of how much is at stake and how much is decided about the future of each country and of the world at the turning point of each surge.

Perez noted in a footnote:.In periods of paradigm shift there is a window of opportunity for real catching up as well as for forging ahead.Most of Europe, Japan and the Soviet Union, caught up in the fourth though the latter fell dramatically behind with the fifth.The only mention is in the postscript:.Yet, in the globalized world of the present paradigm, demand is also global.

The best promise of massive market expansion would seem to be in the incorporation of more and more countries to global growth, investment, production and consumption.

Growth in the larger countries of the developing world, together with China, Russia and the ex-socialist group of Eastern Europe, could serve as a first tier to pull the others forward.It is quite obvious that these potentially huge markets are a very long way from saturation.

This was a view reflective of the era in which it was written, in which it was assumed that the Internet, in conjunction with globalization, would liberalize and ultimately democratize China.When China joins the W.We know how much the Internet has changed America, and we are already an open society.Imagine how much it could change China.Good luck! But I would argue to you that their effort to do that just proves how real these changes are and how much they threaten the status quo.

In the knowledge economy, economic innovation and political empowerment, whether anyone likes it or not, will inevitably go hand in hand.Perez has noted that COVID could end what she thinks is the elongated turning point era, much like World War II ended the elongated turning point era of the previous revolution at least in the U.It is notable, for example, that the tech industry has also been an essential element in various government lockdown strategies during the COVID pandemic, most obviously by making it possible for the economy to continue to function while people work from home, and also in enabling a work-from-home lifestyle via e-commerce and food delivery services, with all of the commensurate jobs entailed in providing these services.

That is a fundamental change to society that is only getting started — perhaps a new Golden Era is in fact imminent.At the same time, it is notable that crypto, the most obvious candidate for the next technological revolution is not — contra Perez — an obvious extension of the current era.

The overarching story of Stratechery has been the rise and consolidation of the aforementioned Big 5 tech companies, and the entire premise of Aggregation Theory is the inevitability of centralization in a world of frictionless abundance.Crypto, though, is about the introduction of scarcity; its payoff is decentralization, at the cost, at least for now, of convenience and speed.Perez writes in Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital about what the Maturity phase looks like:.

This is the twilight of the golden age, though it shines with false splendor.It is the drive to maturity of the paradigm and to the gradual saturation of markets.The last technology systems and the last products in each of them have very short life cycles, since accumulated experience leads to very rapid learning and saturation curves.

Gradually the paradigm is taken to its ultimate consequences until it shows up its limitations.Yet, all the signs of prosperity and success are still around.But the unfulfilled promises had been piling up, while most people nurtured the expectation of personal and social advance.The result is an increasing socio-political split…this is a time when deep questions about the system are being asked in many quarters; the climate is favorable for politics and ideological confrontations to come to the fore.

The social ferment can become intense and is sometimes quelled with social reforms.Meanwhile, in the world of big business, markets are saturating and technologies maturing, therefore profits begin to feel the productivity constriction.

Ways are being sought for propping them up, which often involve concentration through mergers or acquisitions, as well as export drives and migration of activities to less-saturated markets abroad.Their relative success makes firms amass even more money without profitable investment outlets.The search for technological solutions lifts the implicit ban on truly new technologies outside the logic of the now exhausted paradigm.

The stage is set for the decline of the whole mode of growth and for the next technological revolution.That seems awfully descriptive of the current era, no? Products that break through reach saturation in record time see TikTok reaching a billion users in three years, or DTC companies that seem to max out in only a couple of years , while the future of established companies seems to be quagmire in legislators and the courts, even as profits continue to pile up without obvious places to invest.

Moreover, to the extent the dystopian picture above is correct — that the real synergy has been between centralized governments and centralized tech companies, to the alarm of both those abroad and in the U.

To be sure this framework does imply that crypto is full of scams and on its way to inflating a spectacular bubble, the aftermath of which will be painful for many, but that is both expected and increasingly borne out by the facts as well.

What will matter for the future is how much infrastructure — particularly wallet installation — can be built-out in the meantime.The time from the Intel microprocessor to the Dotcom Bubble bursting was 30 years and, it should be noted, there were a lot of smaller, more localized bubbles along the way ; Satoshi Nakamoto only published his paper in Thirteen years after was , the year the Mac was introduced; the browser was another 9 years away.

On that Perez and I can certainly agree.This list is transcribed from the second Table 2.Stratechery provides analysis of the strategy and business side of technology and media, and the impact of technology on society.So begins my about page , and there is no company that expands to fill the space afforded by that description quite like Facebook.This does, on one hand, provide for endless amounts of content, much of which, frankly, I would like to move on from; it also means that writing about one aspect of Facebook is fraught with risk: just because you defend one aspect, or attack another, does not mean one is making a comment on the entirety of the corporate beast.

Saying as much , though, did seem to prompt a lot of misunderstanding and, frustratingly, allegations of bad faith, which, optimistically, might have been alleviated by a link to an article like this one.Instead the future looks more like a rainforest , with platforms that span the globe and millions of niche businesses that sit on top.I am, given my career, biased in this regard, but the rise of platforms like Shopify , Etsy, Substack, and the App Store is evidence that new careers can be built and untold niches filled when the entire world is your addressable market.

It is difficult to overstate what a big deal this is: suddenly a Shopify merchant can compete with Amazon, a D2C startup with Unilever, or a blog with the New York Times.Facebook is also very adept at simplifying the process in exchange for more margin, of course : simply specify how much a customer is worth to you, and Facebook will deliver that customer.

It is worth noting, though, that a big chunk of the most private human readable data is content that users give Facebook themselves when they use the site; Facebook combines that with all of the data it collects in all of those connected apps and sites — which are primarily about measuring conversions — in its Data Factory to create machine-learning driven profiles that undergird its advertising.What Facebook does not do is sell user data, not only because data undergirds its advertising business, but also because nearly all of that data would be unintelligible and worthless to any entity other than Facebook.

As I noted in Privacy Fundamentalism , it is tempting to imagine this data as being something akin to a file of your life just laying around for anyone to peruse; Apple has implied precisely this with some of its recent ads.The reality, though, is far more mundane: the nature of computers and the Internet is the spewing of data everywhere, and it is only in aggregate, in a data factory, than any insight from this collection of vectors can be derived, and only then in the context of a larger application like targeted advertising conducted at massive scale.

Moreover, I feel much better about Facebook as a data mediator than about modular advertising stacks where data really is bought and sold.I do understand that lots of folks disagree with me on this point, but again, everything is a trade-off, and I think this one is worth it.The core of my Framework for Regulating Competition on the Internet is distinguishing between platforms and Aggregators; platforms are extremely valuable, because of the opportunities they enable, but are also more subject to abuse, because companies taking advantages of those opportunities are beholden to the platform.

Aggregators, on the other hand, dominate their markets by controlling demand; suppliers are not locked in, but are rather seeking end users, who themselves can visit another website or open another app at any time.

The societal value of Aggregators is lower than Platforms, but the extent to which they can inflict harm is more limited as well — competition really is just a click away.To that end, the only extent to which Facebook is a potential antitrust concern is in terms of advertising, thanks to its massive amount of proprietary data and highly advanced data factory.

Moreover, tradeoffs matter here as well: Facebook having extremely effective data is good for businesses on its platform, and there are privacy concerns with forcing Facebook to share.Consumers are not locked into a single communications app, but can and do multi-home, and can switch between competing services with a swipe.

A decade ago Facebook responded to this challenge by savvily buying upcoming communications apps like Instagram and WhatsApp; I do think that this reduced competition in the sector, particularly from an advertising perspective, and I do think there is a case for regulators to look much more critically at Aggregators buying other would-be Aggregators.That noted, in Facebook — even with Instagram and WhatsApp — faces more competition than ever before; the market worked, and regulators are very much on guard for similar purchases.

Facebook is going to have to keep users with what it has, or builds.These first three points, taken together, paint a picture of an exceptionally well-run company and a very attractive business; there is a reason why Facebook is worth around a trillion dollars.

That can be good if they make it positive.Maybe someone finds love.Maybe it even saves the life of someone on the brink of suicide.That can be bad if they make it negative.Maybe it costs a life by exposing someone to bullies.Maybe someone dies in a terrorist attack coordinated on our tools.It is perhaps the only area where the metrics do tell the true story as far as we are concerned.

Or for our stock price ha! It is literally just what we do.We connect people.All the questionable contact importing practices.All the subtle language that helps people stay searchable by friends.All of the work we do to bring more communication in.The work we will likely have to do in China some day.All of it.The natural state of the world is not connected.It is not unified.It is fragmented by borders, languages, and increasingly by different products.

The ones everyone use win.Most of us have the luxury of working in the warm glow of building products consumers love.But make no mistake, growth tactics are how we got here.Nothing makes Facebook as valuable as having your friends on it, and no product decisions have gotten as many friends on as the ones made in growth.Not photo tagging.Not news feed.Not messenger.In almost all of our work, we have to answer hard questions about what we believe.But connecting people.In the seventeen years since Facebook was founded the number of people using the Internet has grown from around a billion people to around 4.

Of those 4.That is exactly the sort of competence I was referring to above.Here is the problem, though: it is not at all certain that the Internet is good for society.

I believe it is — I just articulated a positive vision for the democratization enabled by Facebook advertising, to take but one small example — but there are obviously massive downsides as well.This is, as I noted, an Internet problem — as Facebook is happy to tell you — but the truth is that Facebook, thanks to its uber-competent focus and execution on growth, effectively made the Internet problem a Facebook problem.

Today we are close to taking our next step.Our greatest opportunities are now global — like spreading prosperity and freedom, promoting peace and understanding, lifting people out of poverty, and accelerating science.

Our greatest challenges also need global responses — like ending terrorism, fighting climate change, and preventing pandemics.Progress now requires humanity coming together not just as cities or nations, but also as a global community.This is especially important right now.Facebook stands for bringing us closer together and building a global community.When we began, this idea was not controversial.Every year, the world got more connected and this was seen as a positive trend.

Yet now, across the world there are people left behind by globalization, and movements for withdrawing from global connection.There are questions about whether we can make a global community that works for everyone, and whether the path ahead is to connect more or reverse course.

This is a time when many of us around the world are reflecting on how we can have the most positive impact.In times like these, the most important thing we at Facebook can do is develop the social infrastructure to give people the power to build a global community that works for all of us.

This is the first, and perhaps most important, political problem Facebook has: the Internet causes real problems, and Facebook willingly made itself responsible for those problems, with no real understanding that the problems even existed.Before that nothing mattered but growth, which produced a very curious dynamic: Facebook had tremendous power but by-and-large declined to exercise it.Given their power over what users see Facebook could, if it chose, be the most potent political force in the world.

Until, of course, said meddling was uncovered, at which point the service, having so significantly betrayed trust, would lose a substantial number of users and thus its lucrative and privileged place in advertising, leading to a plunge in market value.

In short, there are no incentives for Facebook to explicitly favor any type of content beyond that which drives deeper engagement; all evidence suggests that is exactly what the service does.Said reticence, though, creates a curious dynamic in politics in particular: there is no one dominant force when it comes to the dispersal of political information, and that includes the parties described in the previous section.

Remember, in a Facebook world, information suppliers are modularized and commoditized as most people get their news from their feed.This is a big problem for the parties as described in The Party Decides.And, by extension, the most successful politicians in an aggregated world are not those who serve the party but rather those who tell voters what they most want to hear.

These dynamics were in many respects the same as the advertising dynamics I described above: on Facebook both small companies and large companies have an equal shot at customers, and both Party insiders and complete outsiders have an equal shot at voters.

This was true in a way — Facebook created the conditions for someone like Trump to win — but the furor that followed suggested something much more explicit: within days the conversation was about Fake News and Russian influence being the key factors, not campaign mistakes and questionable coverage decisions, and certainly not the fundamental way that the media environment had changed.

There is another, more subtle problem related to the previous point: that Facebook power, which was latent in , and which Zuckerberg made a bid to leverage for a utopian outcome in , is increasingly irresistible to the powers that be.

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.Were the federal Constitution, therefore, really chargeable with the accumulation of power, or with a mixture of powers, having a dangerous tendency to such an accumulation, no further arguments would be necessary to inspire a universal reprobation of the system.

From that manifesto:.For the past decade, Facebook has focused on connecting friends and families.With that foundation, our next focus will be developing the social infrastructure for community — for supporting us, for keeping us safe, for informing us, for civic engagement, and for inclusion of all.

This also makes the case for why I do think the world would be better off were Facebook a much smaller company: its political problems — both for the company and for the world — are irrevocably tied to its size.And so, the most likely outcome is that Facebook simply doubles down on information control, perhaps with some regulation that is far more likely to hinder new startups — stricter limits on data, for example, or increasing liability for user-generated content — than it is to materially harm Facebook.

Not much will change, at least in the short term.It turns out that when it comes to Information Technology, very little is settled; after decades of developing the Internet and realizing its economic potential, the entire world is waking up to the reality that the Internet is not simply a new medium, but a new maker of reality….It is difficult to believe that the discussion of these implications will be reserved for posts on niche sites like Stratechery; the printing press transformed Europe from a continent of city-states loosely tied together by the Catholic Church, to a continent of nation-states with their own state churches.

To the extent the Internet is as meaningful a shift — and I think it is! And, after last week, the world is awake to the stakes; politics — not economics — will decide, and be decided by, the Internet.

Here technology itself will return to the forefront: if the priority for an increasing number of citizens, companies, and countries is to escape centralization, then the answer will not be competing centralized entities, but rather a return to open protocols crypto projects are one manifestation of this, but not the only ones.

The freedom of open source and the self-determination of crypto have always been attractive both technically and philosophically.Centralized platforms like Facebook, though, were just so easy.That, though, is why these political shifts matter: I understand the skepticism about crypto in particular, but I think critics who see only the scams or are focused on the challenges miss the fact that countries want to be sovereign and individuals want to be free.

The more that U.This is where I am jealous of those who do nothing but attack Facebook; no nuance is, if nothing else, succinct.I admitted to my error and explained my thinking in this Update.

Intel Problems — Intel is in much more danger than its profits suggest; the problems are a long time in the making, and the solution is to split up the company.Internet 3.Even if they were right, they will still push the world to Internet 3.

The Next Revolution Several posts throughout the year wrestled with the theory of the next revolution, from memes to metaverses: Internet 3.Mistakes and Memes — Information on the Internet is conveyed by memes, which can be anything and everything.The real world impacts are only now being understood.A huge thank you for making the decision and the effort to record sports day – it was my son xxxxxx first sports day yesterday, and whilst it wasn’t the same as being there to cheer him on, it was definitely the next best thing.

And a huge thank you to Miss Rivet for cheering on the kids, you represented us parents well, and it means so much.The food was amazing! The cake tasted just as good as it looked.Although this was a thank you to us, we must say a heartfelt thank you to this wonderful family for their generousity.

A beautiful floral display received as thanks from a parent as feedback for our fantastic board games club.May My son xxxxxx left Western House last year and went on to the Westgate school.I thought I would update you on his progress after speaking to all his teachers last night at his first parents evening since being there.He has some amazing feedback.In French and music particularly.He achieved advancing in French in his assessment, his teacher is so impressed with him.

I strongly believe his love of French comes from his time at Western House and Madame Elliot who taught him over the years, she made learning a different language fun and clearly gave XXXXXX the passion to do well in the subject.It was amazing to hear how well he is doing and I just wanted to thank not only Madame Elliot and Mr Robinson but all the staff at Western House Academy for instilling values and work ethic into xxxxxx and helping to shape him into the hardworking, polite young man.

I am certain that this has helped my sons own acceptance of the situation.In addition, the home schooling provided during the latest lockdown has been exceptional.The regular communication we received and the timetable that we were sent made it easier for me to support my son whilst also working from home.I appreciate each and every one of them because they have given my son the very best start to his education — they are all amazing, its obvious how hard they all work and how much they care.

My son has thrived here under your excellent leadership.Dear Mrs Snowden, sending you feedback as requested by Mrs Thomson She enjoys dodgeball and canon ball games, her favourite sport is gymnastics.The best part is to dress up in her own outfit each day and meet friends outside the classroom.I also seen dancing and music this time, which shows great atmosphere created for the kids.

The only thing I would like to see that it would be 5 days a week rather then 4 days next time.The only negative comment is that it is a shame its not for 2 weeks!

However, I appreciate that the teachers need a break too.My kids xxxx and xxxx are always buzzing about holiday club and never stop talking about there day.Dear Mrs Snowden, Just wanted to say what a lovely welcome back with the balloons this morning.

Thank you and all your staff for all there hard work over the last few months.Everyone has worked so hard.Best wishes xxxxxxxx.I also wanted to take this opportunity to say how amazing Miss Edwards has been.She is so helpful and supportive and has really made xxxxx transition back into school smooth and stress free.Although xxxx may be suppressing them to some extent, I think it is mostly down to the positive experience and reassurance xxxx has had from the staff.

In addition, the fact that Miss Majid has taken the time to check in on xxxxx well-being is above anything I was expecting, so again, thank you.All in all, with the wonderful welcome Monday morning with the balloons, music and party atmosphere, you have all made a week we were dreading something to be celebrated instead.Hi just wanted to say you all do an amazing job all year around and have been brilliant throughout the Pandemic.

The Welcome back on Monday with balloons and music was a fantastic idea to help the kids gets back.My friends were impressed to.

We were amazed with how much effort the school had made with the balloons, the welcome sign and the uplifting music being played on the playground too this morning.The atmosphere was so lovely.Thank you all so much for all that you do, your efforts are hugely appreciated.

We sometimes get so caught up with the busy life at home that we forget to give you all feedback when things are going well.Human nature to always report when something is not going well.But the way the home learning has been structured during this 2nd lockdown has been great.The easy to follow pre recorded lessons are amazing as opposed to live zoom lessons some schools do as it allows us to go through the lesson at our pace, pause and explain further anything we need to and we can balance our work and home learning accordingly.

I have enjoyed following the lessons myself as they have given me a great insight into exactly what and how the children are taught at school.The amount of work being set is just right.Couple of lighter days that allow the children to choose something to do or work on their project passport is great.The amount of time and effort you all put into properly going through the emails and the children’s work and the detailed replies is excellent.

I know xxxxxx for sure always gets really happy reading the feedback and looks forward to your emails.Zoom calls are fun and every child is given a chance to talk and engage.Overall we are very very happy with the system and very thankful for the incredible effort the teachers are putting into making home schooling effective and fun.

It was not easy for you all either to have to change and adapt but you all did incredibly well this year.The online learning set up for year 4 work is amazing! She loved joining the call today, she was so happy with having seen her friends.A huge thank you for all your hard work with creating such an amazing online learning platform covering all areas.The amount to be done is just right, not too much and not too little.The deadlines are a great way to motivate kids too.Such an amazing experience to study online.

Here are some videos and pictures of her practice.Thank you very much to all teachers and the team of WHA.I request to continue providing online study videos at least once in a week, so we can help our kids learning home as we can follow the same pattern and syllabus.

Thank you so much for your support! I just wanted to feedback that the online learning through the virtual classroom for Year 4 has been excellent.

Interactive bar

Posts navigation.Jackson said of Gollum:.

Some weird experience of Warm Isolation and i love it, time: 4:51
Rate article
Roblox Executors & Hacks
Add a comment