mSSD Hard Drive Acceleration Cache = page fault in nonpaged area

Due to the fact that the latest laptop computers don’t offer all that much more than the 17″ HP that I bought in 2012 (e.g., see “Why do laptops STILL have so little RAM?“), I decided to see if I could figure out why the old machine was unable to boot. At first I blamed Microsoft for its Windows 10 updates because the machine had died right in the middle of one. But then we discovered that the computer couldn’t boot properly even from a USB drive if the hard drive were simply plugged in. The machine would die with “page fault in nonpaged area.” I remembered that I had paid $50 or $100 extra for a 32 GB SSD cache. Hunting this animal down required a nearly complete disassembly of the machine, including removing the keyboard and top cover, a bunch of zero-insertion force connectors, about 25 screws, etc. When we were done, however, and the little Samsung board was removed from its mSATA home, the machine was considerably healthier.

I guess it makes sense that you wouldn’t want to add an extra level of complexity to every hard drive access. Certainly the purported acceleration never materialized. The machine was slow to boot and subject to the same “I’m thinking for a while” pauses that plague any other computer with a mechanical hard drive and bloated software. I wonder if this mSSD cache ever did anything for consumers other than break computers.

I’m putting this here in my weblog for antique laptop fans who are Googling for why their computer either can’t find an operating system on the hard drive and/or dies with “page fault in nonpaged area” when trying to boot from a USB drive.

It does seem to be time to retire this beast. I had ordered a Lenovo X1 Yoga but the delivery date slipped quite a bit and I canceled it. What else is happening in the laptop world? Dell seems to be stuck at 256 GB SSDs, even for $2000+ XPS laptops. 256 GB sounds great until you realize that this the same storage capacity as an iPhone 7.

Intel has a 7th generation processor line but the devices aren’t available yet? Should one wait for the next generation MacBook Pro? Go to Costco and buy a $400 laptop then stuff in a $235 1 TB SSD?

Related:

Full post, including comments

Blue Angels at the Reno Air Races 2016

Some photos from the Blue Angels show at the Reno Air Races: with Google (until they decide to kill Photos the way that they killed Picasa?)

[Tech details: the now-discredited Canon 5D Mark III (we all need a Mark IV!) and the 200-400/4 zoom lens with built-in teleconverter. Incompetence papered over with motor drive and cropping in Picasa. It was a real pleasure to return to the Canon user interface after a multi-year sojourn in the Sony wilderness. On the other hand when it was time to capture a little video I said to myself “How come I can’t see the video in the viewfinder (optical) or on the rear screen (washed out by the sun)?”]

Separately, for those who wanted to see where tax dollars go to die, the Air Force brought a couple of F-35 fighter jets there.

ke0c2069

Watching the Blue Angels it occurred to me that few people would say “Wow, we need to spend $400 billion on some new fighter jets because these F-18s aren’t very maneuverable.”

I had an off-the-record talk with a couple of Air Force guys. They couldn’t come up with a scenario in which any fighter is useful other than a hot war with China or Russia: “We’re dropping bombs from F-15s just because we needed to give them something to do.” But we need the F-35 for dogfights? “No. The F-35 is the everyday fighter. You send out 30 and hope that 20 come back. The F-22 goes out, kills 30 bad guys, and comes back before the enemy knows it was there.” Why don’t we just have F-22s and the older fighters then? “They shut down production of the F-22 because the F-35 was just around the corner and was going to be a lot cheaper. Now the F-35 is the same price and it would be too expensive to restart the production line for the F-22.”

Complicating matters is the fact that the old planes have a limited airframe life, e.g., 6000 hours for an F-18. So we can’t just run the old ones forever like we do with transports and bombers, at least not without a lot of inspections and perhaps strengthening.

The Air Force guys described new software (Automatic Ground Collision Avoidance System) added to the F-16 fighter jet that will save the airplane from pilot error or incapacitation (article/video). If we assume that human-piloted fighter planes do have a future (i.e., that the aerial battlefield will not belong to a swarm of inexpensive drones), I’m wondering if it wouldn’t have been smarter to spend $400 billion on software to assist human pilots in the existing airframes.

Full post, including comments

Taxation in the Good Old (Russian) Days

Peter the Great: His Life and World describes a world that is in some ways very familiar…

The Tsar’s demands for money were insatiable. In one attempt to uncover new sources of income, Peter in 1708 created a service of revenue officers, men whose duty it was to devise new means of taxing the people. Called by the foreign name “fiscals,” they were commanded “to sit and make income for the Sovereign Lord.” The leader and most successful was Alexis Kurbatov, a former serf of Boris Sheremetev who had already attracted Peter’s attention with his proposal for requiring that government-stamped paper be used for all legal documents. Under Kurbatov and his ingenious, fervently hated colleagues, new taxes were levied on a wide range of human activities. There was a tax on births, on marriages, on funerals and on the registration of wills. There was a tax on wheat and tallow. Horses were taxed, and horse hides and horse collars. There was a hat tax and a tax on the wearing of leather boots. The beard tax was systematized and enforced, and a tax on mustaches was added. Ten percent was collected from all cab fares. Houses in Moscow were taxed, and beehives throughout Russia. There was a bed tax, a bath tax, an inn tax, a tax on kitchen chimneys and on the firewood that burned in them. Nuts, melons, cucumbers, were taxed. There was even a tax on drinking water. Money also came from an increasing number of state monopolies. This arrangement, whereby the state took total control of the production and sale of a commodity, setting any price it wished, was applied to alcohol, resin, tar, fish oil, chalk, potash, rhubarb, dice, chessmen, playing cards, and the skins of Siberian foxes, ermines and sables. The flax monopoly granted to English merchants was taken back by the Russian government. The tobacco monopoly given by Peter to Lord Carmarthen in England in 1698 was abolished. The solid-oak coffins in which wealthy Muscovites elegantly spent eternity were taken over by the state and then sold at four times the original price.

The governors commanded, the fiscals schemed, the tax collectors strained and the people labored, but only so much money could be squeezed from the Russian land. More could come only from the development of commerce and industry.

No matter how much the people struggled, Peter’s taxes and monopolies still did not bring in enough. The first Treasury balance sheet, published in 1710, showed a revenue of 3,026,128 roubles and expenses of 3,834,418 roubles, leaving a deficit of over 808,000 roubles. This money went overwhelmingly for war. The army took 2,161,176 roubles; the fleet, 444,288 roubles; artillery and ammunition, 221,799 roubles; recruits, 30,000 roubles; armament, 84,104 roubles; embassies, 148,031 roubles; and the court, medical department, support of prisoners and miscellaneous, 745,020 roubles.

For some, the burden was too heavy and the only solution to the demands of the tax collector and the work gang was escape. Perhaps hundreds of thousands of peasants simply ran away. Some faded into the forests or traveled to the north, where prosperous settlements of Old Believers already existed. Most went south to the Ukrainian and Volga steppes, the land of the Cossacks, the traditional refuge for Russian runaways. Behind, they left deserted villages and nervous governors and landlords anxiously trying to explain why they could not fulfill the Tsar’s demands for manpower. When, to check this dangerous outflow, the Tsar ordered that the runaways be returned, the response of the Cossacks was hesitation, evasion and, ultimately, defiance.

After Poltava, the emphasis changed. As the demands of war diminished, Peter became more interested in other kinds of manufacturing, those designed to raise Russian life to the level of the West and at the same time to make Russia less dependent on imports from abroad. Aware that large sums were being drained out of the country to pay for imports of silk, velvet, ribbon, china, and crystal, he established factories to make these products in Russia. To protect the fledgling industries, he placed high import duties on foreign silk and cloth which doubled their price for Russian buyers. Basically, his policy was similar to that of other European states at the time, which can generally be described as mercantilism: to increase exports in order to earn foreign currency, and decrease imports in order to stem the flow of Russian wealth abroad. Peter’s industrialization policy had a second purpose, equally important. His tax collectors were already wringing the Russian people lifeless to finance the war. The only long-term way to extract more revenue from his people, Peter realized, was to increase the production of national wealth, thus increasing the tax base.

Commerce is a delicate mechanism, and state decrees are not usually the best way to make it work.

Although Peter repeatedly emphasized to his officials that taxes should be levied “without unduly burdening the people,” his own constant demand for funds overruled this sentiment. Taxes crushed every article and activity of daily life, yet the state never collected enough money to pay its mounting expenses. In 1701, the army and navy swallowed up three quarters of the revenues; in 1710, four fifths; and in 1724, even though the war was over, two thirds. When money was short, Peter slashed the salaries of all officials, temporal and spiritual, excepting only those most necessary to the realm: “foreign artisans, soldiers and sailors.” In 1723, there was so little cash that some government officials were paid in furs. The only solution, until growing commercial and industrial activity could expand the tax base, was to lay still heavier taxes on the burdened nation. Hitherto, the basic tax had been the old household tax, determined by a census taken in 1678 during the reign of Tsar Fedor. This tax was laid on every village and landowner according to the number of houses and farms possessed (and made for crowded living because, to avoid taxation, as many families and people as possible crowded under one roof). In 1710, believing that the population must have increased, Peter ordered a new census. To his astonishment, the new census showed that in thirty years the number of households had decreased by from one fifth to one quarter. There was some real justification for this: Peter had drained off hundreds of thousands of men into the army, the shipyards at Voronezh, the work on the canals and the building of St. Petersburg, while thousands more had fled into the forest or to the frontier. But the new low figures also represented the helplessness of the government to overcome the stratagems of both nobility and peasants who were determined to evade taxes. Bribing the commissioners who counted the houses was a preliminary gambit. If this failed, the peasants simply removed their houses from the commissioners’ sight. Russian peasant houses were largely made of logs or timbers notched at four corners. Thus, they could be un-notched in a few hours and either removed to the forest or scattered about. The census takers and tax collectors knew the trick, but there was little they could do about it.

[Contradicting some of the above…] When the Emperor died, the state did not owe a kopek. Peter had fought twenty-one years of war, constructed a fleet, a new capital, new harbors and canals without the aid of a single foreign loan or subsidy (indeed, it was he who paid subsidies to his allies, especially Augustus of Poland). Every kopek was raised by the toil and sacrifice of the Russian people within a single generation. He did not float internal loans so that future generations could help to pay for his projects, nor did he devalue the currency by issuing paper money as Goertz had done on behalf of Charles XII of Sweden. Instead, he laid the entire burden on his contemporary Russians. They strained, they struggled, they opposed, they cursed. But they obeyed.

More: Read Peter the Great: His Life and World

Full post, including comments

How much time are we wasting due to Yahoo data breach?

I just updated the passwords on my seldom-used Yahoo! account and also on some other accounts where I used the same password (quelle horreur!). I have enabled two-step authentication everywhere that it was disabled. I’m wondering if this proves the point made in Swiss pour cold water on our Internet dreams (cost of securing the Internet will exceed the benefits of connectivity by 2019). How much of my life will I spend waiting for text messages to arrive as part of the two-step authentication process? Re-typing fresh passwords into mobile devices?

Separately, given the cost of securing an employee’s electronic devices is more or less fixed (same cost to secure devices for someone who works 1 hour per week as for someone who works 80 hours per week), I wonder if the fact that Russians turned out to be so much smarter than Americans also contributes to the gender pay gap (see “Reassessing the Gender Wage Gap” regarding research by Claudia Goldin of the Harvard econ department; she says that companies pay more per hour to employees who work more hours per week; see also Goldin’s study on parental altruism in the Rationale chapter of Real World Divorce (punchline: at least some parents are happy to make their kids worse off if they can get more cash for themselves)).

Related:

Full post, including comments

American public WiFi performance survey

While on a recent trip to Nevada I did a little survey of public WiFi networks.

What’s achievable by competent folks? Stockholm’s Vasa museum is generally packed with more than 1000 visitors and on a busy summer 2016 afternoon I measured a symmetric 50 Mbits to/from my phone (“Americans with Swedish ancestry” earn “more than $10,000 above the income of the average American” (CATO) and therefore it is possible that Sweden is packed with people who are more competent and diligent than average Americans).

At the FBO (private jet terminal) at Reno’s airport I measured 0.72 Mbits download and 0.18 Mbits upload (i.e., the public network in Sweden is 277X faster for upload). From my room at Reno’s Silver Legacy casino hotel I measured 1.97 Mbits down and 1.88 Mbits up (slower than the satellite link from a Royal Caribbean cruise ship). At the $470 million brand-new Smith Center in Las Vegas, which takes the trouble to advertise in the show program the availability of public WiFi, speeds were too slow to measure:

As the Verizon and AT&T networks don’t reach into the auditorium, the venue thus loses the opportunity for patrons to promote a show on Facebook, etc.

The Las Vegas and Logan airports had WiFi that was reasonably fast when it worked but devices couldn’t stay connected (Las Vegas) or apps didn’t work (e.g., Uber at Logan airport until I disabled WiFi and reverted to the Verizon LTE network).

Full post, including comments

Comfort for anyone whose building project has gone awry

Peter the Great: His Life and World talks about the challenges of building St. Petersburg:

1703 was late in the history of Europe for the founding of a major city. By then, large towns and cities had sprung up even in Europe’s American colonies: New York was already seventy-seven years old, Boston seventy-three, Philadelphia sixty. And St. Petersburg, for 200 years the capital of the Russian empire, now the second-largest city of the Soviet Union, is the northernmost of all the great metropolises of the world. Placing it at the same latitude on the North American continent would mean planting a city of three and a half million on the upper shores of Hudson Bay.

Even traders who for centuries had used the Neva to reach the Russian interior had never built any kind of settlement there: It was too wild, too wet, too unhealthy, simply not a place for human habitation. In Finnish, the word “neva” means “swamp.”

Most of the new city was built of wood, and fires broke out almost every week. Attempting to contain the damage, the Tsar organized a system of constant surveillance. At night, while the city slept, watchmen sat in church towers looking out over the silent rooftops. At the first sign of fire, the watchman who spotted it rang a bell whose signal was immediately picked up and passed along by other watchmen throughout the city. The bells woke drummers, who turned out of bed and beat their drums. Soon the streets were filled with men, hatchets in hand, running to the fire. Soldiers who happened to be in the city also were expected to hurry to the scene. Eventually, every officer, civil or military, stationed in St. Petersburg was given a special fire-fighting assignment for which he was paid an extra monthly allowance; failure to appear brought swift punishment. Peter himself had such an assignment and received a salary along with the rest. “It is a common thing,” said a foreign observer “to see the Tsar among the workmen with a hatchet in his hand, climbing to the top of the houses that are all in flames, with such danger to him that the spectators tremble at the sight of it.”

One problem was that the region simply could not feed itself. The Neva delta, with its great stretches of water, forest and swamp, seldom produced good harvests, and sometimes, in wet years, crops rotted before they ripened. Wild nature was helpful; there were strawberries, blackberries and an abundance of mushrooms, which Russians ate as a great delicacy with only salt and vinegar. There were small hares, whose gray fur turned white in winter, which provided dry, tough meat, and wild geese and ducks. The rivers and lakes teemed with fish, but foreigners were chagrined to find that they could not buy it fresh; Russians preferred fish salted or pickled. But despite what could be gleaned from soil, forest and waters, St. Petersburg would have starved without provisions sent from outside. Thousands of carts traveled from Novgorod and even from Moscow during the warmer months bringing food to the city; in winter, the lifeline was maintained on a stream of sleds. If these supplies were even slightly delayed along the way, prices immediately soared in St. Petersburg and in the villages nearby, for, in reverse of the normal process, the town supplied its satellites with food. In the forest around St. Petersburg, an endless horizon of scraggly birches, thin pines, bushes and swamps, the traveler who ventured off the road was quickly lost. The few farms in the region lay in clearings reached by unmarked paths. And in these thickets and groves roamed bears and wolves. The bears were less dangerous, for in summer they found enough to eat and in winter they slept. But wolves were plentiful in all seasons, and in winter they appeared in aggressive packs of thirty or forty. This was when hunger drove them to enter farmyards to catch dogs and even attack horses and men. In 1714, two soldiers standing guard in front of the central foundry in St. Petersburg were attacked by wolves; one was torn to pieces and eaten on the spot, the second crawled away but died soon after. In 1715, a woman was devoured in broad daylight on Vasilevsky Island, not far from Prince Menshikov’s palace.

More: read Peter the Great: His Life and World

Full post, including comments

Eighteenth Century Russian Welfare System

Peter the Great: His Life and World talks about a 300-year-old attempt to handle some of the problems of poverty:

The Tsar decided to do something about the clamoring hordes of beggars who pursued citizens up and down the streets from the moment they left their doors until they entered another house. Frequently, the beggars managed to blend their pleas with a simultaneous deft picking of the victim’s pockets. By decree, begging was forbidden and so was the encouragement of begging; anyone caught giving alms to beggars was fined five roubles. To deal with the beggars themselves, the Tsar attached a hospital to every church, personally endowed by himself, to provide for the poor. That the conditions in these hospitals may have been stark was suggested by another ambassadorial witness, who wrote, “This soon cleared the streets of those poor vagrants, many of whom chose to work rather than to be locked up in the hospitals.”

Related:

Full post, including comments

Cash value of Angelina Jolie’s children: roughly $50 million tax-free

You’ve perhaps heard that Angelina Jolie has sued Brad Pitt to obtain sole physical custody of six children (petition starting the lawsuit) plus a share of money that Pitt earned during the marriage and perhaps before the marriage (“quasi-community assets”). The lawsuit is improperly characterized as primarily seeking a “divorce” due to the fact that California is a no-fault state and Jolie would be guaranteed a divorce per se simply for showing up to the courthouse and filing a form (no attorney necessary).

One interesting angle is press coverage noting “In her filing, Jolie does not ask for spousal or child support” (CNN article specifically titled “What’s at stake”) despite the fact that the Petition plainly states “the court will make orders for the support of the children upon request and submission of financial forms by the requesting party.” Jolie will be entitled to collect child support back-dated at least to when she filed her lawsuit regardless of when in the litigation she gets around to filing the requisite financial forms.

Is Jolie likely to win? As noted in the California chapter of Real World Divorce, the jurisdiction has a winner-take-all character and courts generally seek to promote one parent to “primary” (winner) status while the other is demoted to “secondary” (loser) status. Thus it seems reasonable for her to hope that a judge will decide that one parent should dominate (see this chapter for whether or not running courts this way is a good idea for kids). Census 2014 data show that 94 percent of Californians collecting child support are women and therefore Jolie could expect a high statistical chance of winning custody simply based on her current gender identification.

A Massachusetts lawyer told us that divorce litigators here refer to children as “little bags of money” due to the fact that each one will generate up to 23 years of tax-free cashflow, potentially in excess of the state’s median family income. What are the six “little bags of money” potentially worth to Jolie?

California’s online calculator kicks out a result of roughly $6 million per year, tax-free: the completed calculation. As the youngest children are (twins) are currently 8 years old, California children stop yielding a return at age 18 (Massachusetts is 23; New York is 21), and the total cashflow will taper down as the older children age out of the system, Jolie’s quest to become the primary parent is potentially worth roughly $50 million (tax-free). If we take $7 million per movie as Jolie’s likely earnings going forward (this source says $7-15 million but Jolie is getting older and presumably future contracts are more likely to be at the lower end of the range) and assume a 50 percent marginal tax rate (California state plus federal), she would need to act in 14 movies to earn $50 million after taxes.

Here are the assumptions:

  • the defendant’s net worth at $350 million and the plaintiff’s at $275 million (source: Journal of Popular Studies)
  • a 5 percent income from investments, either real or imputed by the judge, resulting in $1.46 million of “interest received” for Pitt and $1.15 million per month for Jolie
  • earned income for Pitt of $31.5 million per year (Forbes) and $15 million per year for Jolie (tougher to find an authoritative estimate; I used this source)
  • six children
  • the children spend 20 percent of their time with the loser parent (this is the form default)

[What would “justice” look like in a different jurisdiction? Simply by showing up in court and identifying as a woman Jolie would automatically win primary custody in Denmark or Germany, but her revenue would be limited to $8,000 per child per year, i.e., $48,000 per year instead of $6 million per year. In neighboring Nevada Jolie’s child-related revenue would be capped at less than $13,000 per year per child and, as of October 1, 2015, state law favors 50/50 parenting (see “New Nevada Custody Laws Going Into Effect on October 1, 2015”). Thus Pitt could have saved himself a considerable amount of heartache over losing the kids, legal fees (a divorce litigator I met at the Reno Air Races charges a fixed $3500 to handle a divorce plus an additional $6000 if the case goes to trial), and financial exposure if he had insisted on establishing a primary residence in Tahoe or Las Vegas and Gulfstreaming into Hollywood as necessary.]

Notes:

  • the California child support guidelines are presumed to apply but judges can deviate from the guidelines if they can find reasons for doing so
  • Jolie’s lawsuit is being handled by Laura Wasser, who was in the news recently for defending Johnny Depp from Amber Heard (Bloomberg says that the unmarried Wasser has out-of-wedlock children with multiple fathers and is thus able to collect child support at California rates but can shield her own earnings from a potential alimony claim)
Full post, including comments

Chaos Monkeys explains why Facebook is such a money machine

Chaos Monkeys: Obscene Fortune and Random Failure in Silicon Valley by Antonio Garcia Martinez is mostly about his crusade to bring Facebook into the modern world of Internet advertising. He explains why the fight that got him fired wasn’t relevant in the long run:

The Great Facebook Ads Debate of 2013 ended up being moot, or at least, a debate whose import would be more strategic and long-term than tactical and immediate. For all the Sturm and Drang, Facebook’s quarter-saving gold mine, the thing that catalyzed the stock out of the post-IPO doldrums, wasn’t Custom Audiences or FBX. A third product, the only other novel ads product Facebook launched during its harried IPO period, code-named “Neko,” was that savior. The product itself, like so many, was simply the combination of two otherwise disparate domains: Facebook’s ever-addictive News Feed and ads inventory on the Facebook mobile app, instead of the desktop site. That’s it: ads in News Feed, while the user was on his or her mobile device—that’s what saved Facebook.

In retrospect, it’s clear to see why Facebook succeeded on mobile. For starters, data. On desktop, the browser and its cookie pool (that even third parties like data brokers and even Facebook can read from and write to) mean there’s a lot of data sloshing around for every Web browser. The fact you’re pricing your car on the Kelley Blue Book site, or searching movie times on Fandango, is something that’s known not just to Fandango or Kelley, but to an entire world of data brokers and targeters. In mobile, Web browsers generally don’t accept third-party cookies, which means that someone other than the New York Times can’t read or write data about you when you’re on nytimes.com on your mobile browser. Contrast that to the data mayhem that reigns on a desktop browser. Also, that mobile browser typically does not have access to your unique device ID, which, as we’ll see, is the real identifier that matters in the mobile advertising world.

Second, the triumph of apps as the core mobile experience. Think of it this way: from the data perspective (if not the technical one), an app is like a unique browser for a specific company, which that company has built so you can experience its very particular website. You effectively have hundreds of unique browsers on your phone, with which you read content and buy goods or services.

If you’ve gotten to level 47 in Candy Crush Saga, searched for a house on the Redfin real estate app, or bought something on Amazon’s mobile commerce app, that data lives and dies inside those apps, and never leaves. This means that on mobile, at least datawise, you have a first-party relationship with a few apps, and that’s it—there are no data middlemen.

This was confirmed in a big way when Facebook Ads launched the only truly novel thing it’s launched since the IPO: the Facebook Audience Network. AN, as it’s known, is easy to understand: it’s simply Facebook Ads, powered by Facebook data, running on apps other than Facebook. As such, it’s the cleanest test of the value of Facebook’s data. The performance of those campaigns, in terms of both clickthrough rates for advertisers and actual monetized CPM for publishers, was very good, indicating that in the land of the mobile data blind, the one-eyed Facebook man was indeed king.

All this meant that while on desktop high-quality publishers with engaging formats competed with Facebook, on mobile the pickings were very slim indeed. Nonintrusive but stylish ads, which paired well with organic content from your friends, on an app experience like Facebook, which featured supremely focused attention and a crazy-high engagement rate (clickthrough rates on Facebook’s News Feed reached easily into the single-digit percentages), were very competitive with the mobile alternatives. This meant Facebook had the mobile advantage from the get-go. Those two things, data and high-quality formats and placements, meant that Facebook dominated mobile like few other incumbents had managed to, and would dominate for the foreseeable future.

One of the pleasures of Martinez’s book is that it reminds us how unpredictable financial success can be:

None of this, of course, was even remotely apparent in early 2013 (despite whatever Facebook claims now), when the ego pissing matches in Sheryl’s conference room depicted in this book were raging. That’s the nature of Valley success, however: you try ten things, based mostly on random hunches, a few key product insights, and whatever internal mythologies your culture reveres. Seven of them fail miserably, are discontinued, and are soon quietly swept under the rug of “forever today” forgetfulness. Two do OK, for more or less the reasons you thought, but they don’t blow the doors off your success metric. And one, for reasons you discover only after the fact, becomes a huge, transformational success. The amnesiac tech press weaves the narrative fallacy around the proceedings, fabricating a make-believe dramatic arc from steely-eyed product ideation to flawless and unhesitating technical execution. What was an improbable bonanza at the hands of the flailing half-blind becomes the inevitable coup of the assured visionary. The world crowns you a genius, and you start acting like one. When the next usage or revenue crisis hits, you repeat the experiment, rolling your set of product dice on the big Valley table. At some point, you don’t find the crisis-solving winner, the dealer sweeps up your remaining chips, and you’re busted. The company fails and your logo is recycled as a reminder of corporate mortality. Then everyone wonders how such a confirmed genius could have possibly failed, and ruminates on the transience of talent.

[Note that Martinez’s own creation would have been successful when compared to any yardstick other than the rest of Facebook’s revenue:

What about FBX, our baby in this drama? FBX’s revenue, which was just starting to show signs of explosive growth toward the end of my Facebook tenure, hit its stride in the months after I departed, reaching about a half billion in revenue by early 2014, all of that absolutely new. That means FBX was one of the fastest-growing new-revenue products in Facebook history, second only to the billion-dollar News Feed bonanza described above. And it was built with a handful of people at peak development, while News Feed ads required a small army to create and maintain. … Despite that everlasting antagonism, FBX stubbornly holds on, too profitable and too strategic to shut down (for now at least), much to the chagrin of the Bolands and the Bozes of Ads.

]

More: read Chaos Monkeys: Obscene Fortune and Random Failure in Silicon Valley

Full post, including comments

Who understands the tax law for employees compensated in stock?

Chaos Monkeys: Obscene Fortune and Random Failure in Silicon Valley talks about a tax situation that seems to apply to the typical employee of a California tech company:

[Reflecting on his startup co-founders’ profits from joining Twitter] We’re still on speaking terms, more or less; Argyris and I more than MRM, but that’s hardly surprising from what you’ve read. They’ve managed to forgive whatever slight they felt at the deal drama I created. After all, it worked out very well for them in the end. And my outcome? Practically nothing by comparison. Recall, the Facebook offer was in restricted stock, which is taxed as common income. Also recall, Facebook’s IPO, unlike Twitter’s, came out at a high price of $38, and then languished for a year around $30, occasionally going so low as $18. That IPO was great for employees and insiders worried about dilution, but not for people wanting to cash out (like me), and walk away from the Silicon Valley casino. With the lockout, insiders weren’t able to sell the stock until months after the IPO, when FB was at $20. Thus I owed taxes at the maximum marginal tax rate (plus whopping California state income tax) assuming a cost basis of $38, when I had really sold at lower, effectively paying taxes on money I hadn’t made. In a smaller way, mine was the plight of the first tech-boom bankruptcies, who paid taxes when prices were dear, but sold stock when prices were cheap.

How does this actually work in practice? Stock given by a Silicon Valley company to an employee is valued on a particular date? Which date? The date on which the employee is hired? The dates on which stock is actually vested and at the market price at the time? Via some other mechanism?

[Separately, Martinez shows the hazards of getting rich via aquihired… you can also become poor when you get acquifired before vesting the shares purported received a part of the deal. On the vesting process:

This is what it feels like to go from a startup to a big company. Even Facebook, whose ability to maintain a fast-moving, always-be-shipping culture well into corporate middle age was admirable and unique, was simply a German-style autobahn, not a racetrack. The days of a few engineers going rogue and launching Facebook Video despite Zuck’s wishes were long gone. Most vehicles moved at the speed limit, lots of trucks hogged the right lane, and a select few drivers traveled at full speed in the left lane (with no-speed-limit passes given out by Zuck alone, and anyone else who dared race ahead did so at peril to his or her career).

As early as a few months into Facebook, once the novelty had worn off, I could feel myself growing bored and frustrated with the speedometer stuck in the middle double digits. Product development in Ads was sluggish and curiously hesitant. The targeting team continued trying to squeeze juice out of the dry data lemon, and Gokul kept on riding the Ads team mercilessly, while offering nothing in the way of direction. The Facebook cast was unfailingly competent but not the race car drivers of my previous startup life, and it seemed I was waiting to get somewhere. Given the nature of technology compensation, I actually was.

I’d have to patiently wait out my vesting schedule; the joke term for doing so in less spirited companies than Facebook was being a “VIP”—that is, “vesting in peace.”

To measure progress, I put a countdown clock app on my MacBook’s dashboard, measuring the time until my first vesting, beyond which I already couldn’t imagine staying. The clock counted in minutes, hours, and days, and I referred to it often, especially after a particularly challenging meeting that reeked of corporate cant and catatonia

Here’s what it was like to be fired:

“You’re a very divisive figure, Antonio. I read the reviews of your team members, and then that of management. They’re completely opposed. One loves you, and the other hates you.” “That’s true, Boz. I’ve certainly made friends and enemies here. But my goal has always been to give Facebook the best ads system possible.” This was, in all seriousness, true. I could barely remember what my life was like before Facebook, and there was a trail of destruction I had caused by spending my entire life there: two children neglected, two different women whose worthy love I’d spurned, two boats rotting in neglect, and anything like an intellect or a life outside campus nonexistent due to indifference and my dedication to the Facebook cause.

There were few women one would call conventionally attractive at Facebook. The few there were rarely if ever dressed for work with their femininity on display in the form of dresses and heels. A fully turned out member of the deuxième sexe in a conference room was as clear an angel of death as a short-barreled .38 Special revolver. Gokul gave an awkward smile, and bolted out the door the moment I sat down. I looked across the table. If her look was supposed to disarm me, she needed either more cleavage or more charm. I glared at her as she read through her script. “We are offering a severance package . . .” Here she switched into the false sotto voce that professional manipulators, like salesmen or politicians, use to make a cheap bid for personal intimacy. “We offer this to very few employees . . .” She slipped a contractual-looking document across the table. Non Disparagement Clause. . . . $30,000 . . . . For one year from the date of this document you will not . . . Ha! I saw the game. This had a unique Gokul stench all over it, like that of roadkill skunk. Knowing my penchant for hyperbolic criticism, and my flair for garnering attention with a well-worded Facebook post, Gokul had decided to bribe me into silence. This additional shut-up clause would strengthen Facebook’s ability to sue me should it choose to.

We reached my desk, which was impeccable for once, positively shining from my weekend ministrations. There was nothing on it except my laptop. “Where’s your laptop?” “Right there,” I said, pointing. “Where’s your phone?” “I forgot it at home.” “Hm, where’s your badge?” “I also forgot it at home.” I, of course, hadn’t forgotten anything. The badge would get me discounts at the Apple store forever. And the phone I hadn’t wiped yet.

]

More: read Chaos Monkeys: Obscene Fortune and Random Failure in Silicon Valley

Full post, including comments