You don’t even need a digital format for this. When I was a consultant I waited in a room with a flip chart for a negotiation. I flipped through the “old slides” of the flip chart and found one where they did budget planning for the project. This was very good background info for the negotiations.
Weirdly, I need background noice to stay focused - like watching/hearing a movie. The background movie is one I already know by heart and so I‘m not distracted. Voices and music from those movies help me to calm and therefore focus.
There are enough examples which one might mention here: Nokia, MySpace, Yahoo, Kodac, AOL, Blockbuster, toys‘r‘us … all ones big. Yes, oracle might not vanish, but it definitely needs some change.
None of those were in business since 1977 (w/ the exception of Nokia, which I would argue is still a successful company today. I wouldn't put it on that list).
None of those were ever valued (even close to) half a trillion, even adjusting for inflation.
Kodak was founded in 1892. I think Oracle is going to go the way of HP. Look at HP over the past 10 years and what it had been in the 10 year period leading up to that. Sure, HP is still a company with $50+ billion in revenue, which actually matches where Oracle is today, but they had been a company with $100+ billion in revenue - and that's before adjusting for inflation.
So while it's hard to call a company with $50+ billion in revenue a failure, they're not nearly what they once were. That's the direction I see Oracle going.
Your first point is correct, they are not that old. And while Nokia is still a company, it does not have the market power it once had. And that's what I meant with it might not vanish - Oracle will still be a company. Still, I think age is not really a good metric for success.
Your second point is right on the spot! Its valued. By what? By others, right? Somebody says a company has a value, which might not reflect its worth. As mentioned by some other commenters, Oracle has a lot of competition. Good competition. That's why I wrote it needs to change in order to stay competitive.
At least I know that bunq, an European „NeoBank“, applied for an FDIC license in the US and received one. It’s offers a lot of cool features and an API.
I think and hope that they don’t do that. As far as I remember their mantra was „no magic, you can see everything which is happening“. They wanted to be a simple and obvious language.
That's fair, but the same argument can be made for Go's verbose error handling. In that case we could argue that `try` is magical, although I don't think anyone would want to take that away.
Its funny how „Games are supposed to be fun“ is also the answer to why there are such sophisticated anti cheat tools needed in the first place. Cheater do lower the fun for other players of course…
I don't think they are needed. Cheaters will always find a way to cheat, giving game developers access to low level kernel features under the guise of anti-cheat is definitely not a trade-off I'd be willing to make. If game makers can't solve a problem with mechanics or moderation, I probably would just not play the game. Most of those issues revolve around MMO things, and could be solved with private lobbies, self-hosting etc - i.e. not playing with randos on the internet.
reply