The Way We Live Now: explaining things very slowly. Over the past few days, we've heard lots of chatter from the chattering class over our new American tax structure. Is it "fair?" We'll break this down as simply as possible.
Choosing a Facebook profile photo is very serious business. It's the visual that will greet high school acquaintances, jealous exes, and your parents' friends when they search you out. The image you project is entirely determined by your photo choice.
Some people are seeing their Google.com logo turn into a bunch of jumping balls this morning. Don't panic. There will be time for that tomorrow, when Google announces changes to how everyone searches the Web.
These days we use celebrities for everything, so why not get one to clean up one of our greatest natural disasters? Kevin Costner's gizmo that separates oil from water might be just what BP needs to save Louisiana's shores.
Know how when you go to type something into Google it offers all those helpful suggestions? Here are the top 10 things that come up when people type in "Why is..." And here are the answers. Wonder no more!
A little over a week ago, we introduced you to Jay Martin, the man who very explicitly wished death upon Barack Obama via Twitter. He has disappeared from the Internet. What happened to him?
She's made more bombs than the Krupp Arms Works and yet Hollywood keeps giving her the keys to its kingdom. This weekend, Sandra Bullock is back again in The Blind Side.
Look, it is a scandalously explicit blowjob-oriented advertisement for the Sprite beverage! But wait, Twitterererers: this is a spec ad. What's a spec ad? A sexy one.
"Can you help? 1) What the h*ll is reconciliation and why does it work for health care but not anything else obama wants to pass?
If Chinese viewers want to watch Disney's Hannah Montana — no accounting for global tastes — they can do so on 56.com, an online-video site akin to YouTube. The show is pirated. But does Disney really mind? Its startup-investment arm, Steamboat Ventures, put money into 56.com two years ago.Eric Garland, CEO of an online piracy research firm, told the Wall Street Journal Disney's investment in 56.com is "ironic" and "shocking." John Ball, Steamboat's managing director, says the company invested in part to help 56.com curb pirated videos. But 56.com is just one of six Chinese companies in Steamboat's portfolio, all of which aim to distribute movies and videogames online. And that's the dirty secret of Disney and other media companies. They don't ultimately care about shows like Hannah Montana. What matters is their channels of distribution, through which such evanescent fare courses — and 56.com promises to be another one. Viacom isn't suing YouTube for $1 billion because it's upset about piracy. It's upset about piracy happening on a channel it doesn't own.
Mark Zuckerberg's college-spawned startup is supposed to hire its 1,000th employee sometime this year. I don't think that's going to happen. If Zuckerberg isn't talking about layoffs behind closed doors, one of his executives must be brave enough to bring it up. I don't think the company is going to issue pink slips. But I do think its headlong growth in employees will come crashing to a halt before the end of the year.Here's some back of the envelope math on Facebook's burn rate. Figure the company's operating expenses are divided roughly half in labor, half in operations like running its servers. Count $100,000 in salary per employee, and double that in benefits and other overhead; double that again to account for the company's non-labor costs. You end up with an annual cost structure of $400 million. Facebook's revenues for this year are projected to be $300 million to $350 million; if the company isn't already operating in the red, it's headed there fast. Microsoft's $240 million investment? Most of that is already gone towards buying servers — and it's not like Facebook can stop buying servers as usage of its site continues to boom. Publicly, Zuckerberg has talked about the company making growth its priority. But a $400 million a year ship can sink fast, especially if the advertising market faces a hard contraction and media buyers cut back on their more experimental ad buys. And none of Facebook's new ad formats have proven to be a breakout hit, as Google's AdWords was earlier this decade. That's why I think Facebook's braintrust is talking about whether they can afford to keep hiring — and whether they need to cull their existing ranks. Here's where Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, the law-and-order type Zuckerberg hired from Google, comes in. She's already made hiring considerably more bureaucratic, instituting new requirements straight out of the Googleplex, like a 3.5 GPA from a top school. Getting strict on recruiting is just the start. Facebookers should expect to see more rules, rules, rules. And even the slightest violation will prove cause for firing — especially for employees who are within weeks of vesting their first batch of stock options, which only come after a year on the job. Sandberg's very savvy about keeping up appearances. Google thrived in part because, in the darkest days of the dotcom crash, from 2001 through 2003, it was the only company hiring. Until it bought DoubleClick, Google had never done a layoff. That's part of Google's image, and I'm sure Sandberg wants it to be part of Facebook's image, too. So we won't hear about a Facebook hiring freeze. We certainly won't hear about layoffs. Whatever happens will be quiet: Candidates won't get called back about jobs they applied for. Managers will find their hiring requests tied up in bureaucracy. And employees will quietly box up their things and go. The sad thing is that those Facebookers will think they screwed up. They won't even have the saving grace of a layoff — the corporate kiss-off that says, "Hey, kid, chin up — it's not you, it's me." A layoff would be the honest thing. But it's the one cost-cutting move Facebook can't afford.
Davos, baby! The partying at the World Economic Forum, the annual conference held in a Swiss resort town that has become synonymous with the event, was "out of control," organizer Klaus Schwab now admits. The Wall Street bosses and Beltway bandits were too busy having a ball to keep their eye on it, even as the economy lurched towards the abyss. This strikes me as revisionist history; the Times reported on the nervous mood at this year's Davos So who kept the event festive?Why, Google did, according to Davos party correspondent Meghan Asha, the sometimes girlfriend of TechCrunch editor Michael Arrington, who got her in. Google's affair included Norman Jay, a British house-music DJ. There you have it: Larry and Sergey are at fault for distracting the world's best and brightest from preventing the meltdown we now face. If Schwab is serious about keeping thing's serious at the next WEF, we recommend disinviting Page and Brin. And Arrington and Asha.
So. Yesterday, Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones died. And just about every news outlet you can think of reported as much. Fine so far, right? Except that when they all reported it, she wasn't dead. And then once everyone corrected, she died, for real. It was all pretty macabre. CJR tries to explain the whole weird incident with another criticism of media practices-anonymous sources and me-tooism or something. What no one (we think?) has pointed out is that the news probably came from her own staff ("Based on information from a reliable Democratic source and stories from other news outlets..."). Which is a pretty unimpeachable source! Until it turned out that they were wrong about their own boss's death. And then they weren't, a bit later. Awkward. [CJR]
I feel sorry for Twitter founder Ev Williams. The self-appointed A-listers who've flocked to his service are building an echo chamber worse than the blogosphere circa 1999. Today's pretend crisis: Williams has set an arbitrary limit that allows most Twitter users to follow no more than 2,000 other users' updates. The hip response is to claim that of course you need way more than that. But seriously, why would anyone try to follow 3,000 Twits? I've summarized Williams's lengthy post explaining the "follow spam" problem. He left out the part where it costs you money:"Follow spam" is what happens when a Twitter user sets up an automated script to subscribe to thousands of individual users' feeds, found by crawling Twitter's pages. Follow-spammers aren't interested in reading all those people's updates. They're actually hoping their new pretend-friends will follow them back in exchange, creating an opt-in list for their messages. These may be marketing, or just personal drama. It seems like a victimless crime, but there are two problems caused by comment spam:
