This, Is Why Google Is Google



Wow, this is getting real now: Skynet is near!


The voice is very human. Can’t tell at all it’s a robot.


Yea. Can’t wait this technology being used on the “promotion” calls to us!


You can deploy your own bot and have the two bots chat up each other. :smile:


Nice. Set up Alexa with the “Amazon prize winner” on the other end and see what happens.


There was actually an alexa talking to another, or google home videos. it was funny.

That said, they demoed a “natural speech” recently outside of duplex. Very human indeed.


A friend remarked: scheduling appointments is easy. let’s see how the bots handle returns.


With amazon, it’s easy. Maybe google home can just send an email on your behalf.




Maybe this is why they’ve yet to develop a second meaningful source of revenue beyond ads. Employees care more about diversity ratios than business results. This probably explains Google’s far left leaning search suggestions too.

You’d think they’d be smart enough to realize a tech company won’t be 50/50 male/female when the bulk of jobs are software engineering and mostly men are getting those degrees. Also, you don’t see many under represented minorities in those programs either.


the guy who wrote about that got fired.


also - what other revenue sources does FB have? :slight_smile:


Exactly. Google is a leftist echo chamber.

FB is only starting to work on diversifying income. Google has been trying for 10 years.


The most diversified tech company is Amazon. Its ambition is boundless and has fingers in more areas than one can count.

Apple too is working to diversify their revenue beyond iPhones, but its much hyped service revenue still ties back to the iPhones. Its services are all second rated and can’t compete if not for their default status on iPhones. So if iPhones went away one day, so will its service revenue. Correlation of 1.0 is not diversification.


manch is an old school.

In any case, Apple operates quite differently from most companies and what is espoused by business textbooks. There is a few famous business professors (can’t remember their names) thought Apple would not exist by now but it didn’t. So if you use textbook stuffs as yardstick, don’t bother, Apple looks bad… that is why the UCLA alumni didn’t get it. Is why many hedge funds and big boys miss the rise of Apple from the ash i.e. AAPL rises with the small boys getting in first before the big boys which is normally not the case. And Apple ends up be the only mega cap where a large portion is owned by millions of small investors like wuqijun and me.

Apple motto is STAY FOCUS.

If Google loses its search dominance?
If Facebook loses its social networking dominance?
If Amazon loses its online retail dominance?
If Tesla loses its EV dominance?
All become a smaller company, same for Apple if it loses iPhone dominance.

As an investor, do we want to invest in a diversified company or a portfolio of sharply focused companies?
Above is a serious question, it determines your investment philosophy. Care to answer that?
My choice is S&P index fund (highly diversified) + AAPL (sharply focused + passive income).


Yes, let’s keep pumping Apple and make Manch a fool out of himself when he decides to dump Amazon and buy apple back :rofl:


Is a serious question. Your choice appears to be investing in a portfolio of sharply focused companies. I think he reads a lot but didn’t think sufficiently deep.


My portfolio has more than 40 stocks and growing. I have a few like REIT’s that just give me dividend income but most are bought for growth reasons.

Besides amazon all the rest just do one thing or two. Companies by themselves are not diversified at all. Half of my money is in companies less than 100B market cap.