What's new

Facebook Founder/Owner : Mark Zuckerberg

Strike Rate

Senior T20I Player
Joined
Oct 23, 2013
Runs
19,788
SAN FRANCISCO — Mark Zuckerberg, the co-founder and chief executive of Facebook, announced on Tuesday that he and his wife would give 99 percent of their Facebook shares “during our lives” — holdings currently worth more than $45 billion — to charitable purposes.

The pledge was made in an open letter to their newborn daughter, Max, who was born about a week ago.

Mr. Zuckerberg and his wife, Dr. Priscilla Chan, said they were forming a new organization, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, to manage the money, through an unusual limited liability corporate structure. “Our initial areas of focus will be personalized learning, curing disease, connecting people and building strong communities,” they wrote.

Mr. Zuckerberg’s charitable plans are the latest indication of a growing interest in philanthropy among Silicon Valley’s young billionaires, who unlike previous generations of business tycoons, appear eager to spread their wealth while they are still young. Mr. Zuckerberg is 31, and Dr. Chan is 30.

Yet they are entering largely uncharted waters with a charity effort of such scale. They have not yet detailed how the money will be spent and the pace at which the money will be given out indicates they plan to take their time.

The couple have had mixed results in earlier charitable efforts.

In 2010, Mr. Zuckerberg and Dr. Chan gave $100 million to improve the public schools in Newark. The money expanded high-performing charter schools but encountered fierce resistance from many parents, community activists and unions. Mr. Zuckerberg has said he learned a lot from the experience.

Still, Larry Brilliant, who works on philanthropic issues with many Silicon Valley figures including Marc Benioff, the chief executive of Salesforce.com, and Jeff Skoll, the co-founder of eBay, said that both the scale and timing of Mr. Zuckerberg’s commitment, coming so early in his career, were rare.

“I hope this will be a model for Mark’s generation,” said Dr. Brilliant, a physician who also previously ran Google’s charitable arm, Google.org.

The Silicon Valley way of philanthropy also demands more control over where the money is spent, though it remains to be seen if this hands-on formula will be successful.

By using a limited liability company instead of a nonprofit corporation or foundation, the Zuckerberg family will be able to go beyond making philanthropic grants. They will invest in companies, lobby for legislation and seek to influence public policy debates, which nonprofits are restricted from doing under tax laws. A spokeswoman for the family said that any profits from the investments would be plowed back into the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative for future projects.

“We must build technology to make change. Many institutions invest money in these challenges, but most progress comes from productivity gains through innovation,” they wrote in the letter to their daughter. “We must participate in policy and advocacy to shape debates. Many institutions are unwilling to do this, but progress must be supported by movements to be sustainable.”


In a securities filing, Facebook said Mr. Zuckerberg planned “to sell or gift no more than $1 billion of Facebook stock each year for the next three years.” He intends to retain his majority voting position in the company’s stock for the foreseeable future.

This week, Mr. Zuckerberg was also one of the billionaires who signed on to the Breakthrough Energy Coalition, a group organized by the Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates to contribute toward a multibillion-dollar clean energy fund. The announcement coincided with a Paris summit meeting intended to forge a global accord to cut planet-warming emissions.

Mr. Zuckerberg has referred to Mr. Gates as one of his childhood heroes for his zeal in building Microsoft into a colossus in the technology industry. Mr. Gates is the wealthiest person in the world, with an estimated worth of $85.2 billion, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. The index estimates that Mr. Zuckerberg’s total worth is $46.8 billion.

Mr. Zuckerberg has admired Mr. Gates’s philanthropic endeavors, too, becoming one of the first people to join the Giving Pledge, an initiative started by Mr. Gates and Warren E. Buffett to get wealthy individuals and their families to give away more than half of their wealth to charities during their lifetimes or after. Mr. Gates has pledged to give away at least 95 percent of his wealth.

“None of this would have happened without Bill Gates,” Dr. Brilliant said.

In a statement, Mr. Gates and his wife, Melinda, congratulated Mr. Zuckerberg and Dr. Chan.

“The example you’re setting today is an inspiration to us and the world,” they said. “We can be confident of this: Max and every child born today will grow up in a world that is better than the one we know now. As you say, ‘Seeds planted now will grow.’ Your work will bear fruit for many decades to come.”

Mr. Zuckerberg and Dr. Chan had previously pledged about $1.6 billion to charitable endeavors, according to a spokeswoman for the family.

“Having this child has made us think about all of the things that should be improved in the world for her whole generation,” Mr. Zuckerberg said in a video. “The only way that we reach our full human potential is if we’re able to unlock the gifts of every person around the world.”

Mr. Zuckerberg and Dr. Chan have recently made visible investments and gifts in several kindergarten-through-high-school education projects.

In May, AltSchool, a private school start-up in San Francisco that develops personalized learning technologies, announced that it had raised $100 million from a group of investors, including a donor-advised fund financed by the Zuckerberg family at the Silicon Valley Community Foundation.

In September, Facebook announced that it was working with Summit Public Schools, a charter school network, to develop an online platform to help tailor education to the needs and interests of individual students.

In November, EducationSuperhighway, a nonprofit group that helps K-12 schools tap federal funds for high-speed classroom Internet connections, announced that the couple had agreed to donate $20 million to its work.

Mr. Zuckerberg and Dr. Chan have also given to health care causes, including a $75 million gift to San Francisco General Hospital, which was renamed in their honor.

The ultimate value of the Zuckerberg family’s charitable pledge is unknown. Mr. Zuckerberg and Dr. Chan intend to gradually transfer their Facebook stock or the proceeds from stock sales to the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative.

If Facebook shares continue to appreciate, the value of the gift could be much higher than the current estimate of $45 billion.

Michael R. Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York and a billionaire as well, also applauded Mr. Zuckerberg’s announcement and said he shared the Facebook executive’s interest in education and innovation.

“The only question now is: How many of his peers in Silicon Valley and beyond will join him?” Mr. Bloomberg said.



http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/02/technology/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-charity.html?_r=0
 
Already people are hating and doubting.

Such a great world.
 
As for Saint Bill Gates he invested a large amount of money in Monsanto, the company behind chemical weapon Agent Orange (used in Vietnam).

Monsanto is prominently featured in 2008's Food Inc. as well. It is easily the most evil corporation in the world.
 
So why would Saint Bill invest in them?
There are rumours he and his ilk want to reduce the world's population via dodgy genetically modified food and chemicals.

I wouldn't know how accurate these rumors are, but if genetic modification of food is what one is looking for, Monsanto is the company to invest in. The things they've done to modify the very genes and DNA of crops, and then copyrighted them, is chilling.

Everyone should watch Food Inc. if they haven't already. It's an eye-opener.
 
Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has told the BBC that it had and would remove any content likely to result in "immediate and imminent harm" to users.

"Even if something isn't going to lead to imminent physical harm, we don't want misinformation to be the content that is going viral," he said.

It removed Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro's claim that scientists had "proved" there was a coronavirus cure.

This was removed because it was "obviously" not true, he said.

He also said that Facebook had removed content from groups claiming that the rollout of the 5G digital network was a cause of the spread of the virus and in some cases encouraged those who believed that to damage the networks physical infrastructure.

Facebook recently removed content from former broadcaster and conspiracy theorist David Icke for "repeatedly violating our policies on harmful misinformation".

Mr Icke had suggested that 5G mobile phone networks are linked to the spread of the virus and in another video he suggested a Jewish group was behind the virus.

Mr Zuckerberg said: "We work with independent fact checkers. Since the Covid outbreak, they have issued 7,500 notices of misinformation which has led to us issuing 50 million warning labels on posts.

"We know these are effective because 95% of the time, users don't click through to the content with a warning label."

However, Facebook has insisted that unless there was the prospect of real imminent harm, then the company would and should allow what he called the "widest possible aperture" for freedom of expression on the internet.

'Arms race'
He also told the BBC that preventing electoral interference is an "arms race" against countries such as Russia, Iran and China.

He admitted that the firm was "behind" in the 2016 US presidential election.

In his first UK broadcast interview in five years, he said that Facebook had been unprepared for state-sponsored interference in 2016.

But he added the company was confident it had since learnt its lessons.

Facebook was previously embroiled in a political scandal in which tens of millions of its users' data ended up in the hands of political interest groups including Cambridge Analytica.

However, he said the social media giant, which also owns Whatsapp and Instagram, was now better prepared than other companies, and even governments, to prevent future attempts to influence political outcomes.

In-app shops launched on Facebook and Instagram
Facebook and Google extend working from home
"Countries are going to continue to try and interfere and we are going to see issues like that but we have learnt a lot since 2016 and I feel pretty confident that we are going to be able to protect the integrity of the upcoming election".

Company control
Mr Zuckerberg also defended his level of personal control over arguably the world's most powerful media platforms.

Although Facebook is a public company worth nearly $700bn (£574bn), he ultimately exerts total individual control thanks to an ownership structure that gives him a controlling interest even though he owns a small fraction of the shares.

He said it had allowed Facebook to make longer-term strategic decisions which have proved to be correct such as waiting to improve the Facebook experience before launching it on smartphones and not selling out early to rivals.

"If it had been different then we would have sold out to Yahoo years ago and who knows what would have happened then. "

Yahoo is now worth 1/20th as much as Facebook.

Facebook continues to face criticism over its reluctance to describe or define itself as a publisher and thus embrace the kind of editorial responsibility that newspapers and traditional broadcasters are legally bound by.

Coronavirus impact
However, it would be hard to argue that Facebook, WhatsApp and Instagram have not provided billions of people with the kind of connectivity with friends and family that has been important during this global pandemic and the consequent restrictions on movement and freedom.

In fact, after many years of courting controversy and opprobrium, it seems clear that Facebook and Mr Zuckerberg are feeling more confident about their public roles.

If there are any winners out of this public health emergency, digital companies like Facebook, Netflix and Amazon are among them.

However, no one is totally immune to the deep downturn that is already upon us and the evidence for which is confirmed with every new economic release.

Facebook knows that and is one of the reasons it is keen to help small businesses online through this week's launch of a service called Facebook Shops.

It's a mutually beneficial exchange. Those businesses are Facebook's current and future customers. What's good for them is good for Facebook.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-52750162
 
US' New Mexico Sues Meta, Mark Zuckerberg Over Child Protection Failures


New Mexico Attorney General Raul Torrez on Wednesday said the state sued Facebook and Instagram parent Meta Platforms and CEO Mark Zuckerberg, saying the social media company had failed to protect children from sexual abuse, online solicitation, and human trafficking.

"Our investigation into Meta's social media platforms demonstrates that they are not safe spaces for children but rather prime locations for predators to trade child pornography and solicit minors for sex," Raul Torrez said in a statement.

He said Meta had enabled "dozens of adults to find, contact, and press children into providing sexually explicit pictures of themselves or participate in pornographic videos."

Meta in response said it uses sophisticated technology, hires child safety experts, reports content to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and shares "information and tools with other companies and law enforcement, including state attorneys general, to help root out predators."

In August alone, Meta said it disabled more than 500,000 accounts for violating child sexual exploitation policies.

Raul Torrez said Mark Zuckerberg and other Meta executives "are aware of the serious harm their products can pose to young users, and yet they have failed to make sufficient changes to their platforms that would prevent the sexual exploitation of children."

Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen on Tuesday announced the state was suing Meta, saying Instagram was "intentionally designed to be addictive, particularly to minors."

In October, more than 40 US states sued Meta, accusing it of fueling a youth mental health crisis by making their social media platforms addictive.

The attorneys general of 33 states including California and New York said Meta repeatedly misled the public about the dangers of its platforms, and knowingly induced young children and teenagers into addictive and compulsive social media use. Eight other US states and Washington, DC filed similar lawsuits.

The cases are the latest in a string of legal actions against social media companies on behalf of children and teens.

Meta, ByteDance's TikTok and Alphabet's YouTube already face hundreds of lawsuits filed on behalf of children and school districts about the addictiveness of social media.



 
Meta boss Mark Zuckerberg apologises to families in fiery US Senate hearing

had been harmed by social media, during a fiery hearing in the US Senate.

Mr Zuckerberg - who runs Instagram and Facebook - turned to them and said "no one should go through" what they had.

He and the bosses of TikTok, Snap, X and Discord were questioned for almost four hours by senators from both parties.

Lawmakers wanted to know what they are doing to protect children online.

It was a rare opportunity for the US senators to question tech bosses.

Mr Zuckerberg and TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew voluntarily agreed to testify - but the heads of Snap, X (formerly Twitter) and Discord initially refused and were sent government-issued subpoenas.

Behind the five tech bosses sat families who said their children had self-harmed or killed themselves as a result of social media content.

They made their feelings known throughout the hearing, hissing when the CEOs entered as well as applauding when lawmakers asked tough questions.

While the hearing mostly focused on the protection of children from online sexual exploitation, the questions varied widely as the senators took advantage of having five powerful executives sitting in front of them under oath.


 

Mark Zuckerberg joins exclusive $200 billion club, closes in on third-richest person in world​

Recent figures from Bloomberg’s Billionaire Index show Zuckerberg has grown his personal fortune by a whopping $73.4 billion in 2024 to $201 billion. The Meta CEO is the fourth richest person in the world, joining an elusive $200 billion club that only counts three other members.

Tesla and X CEO Elon Musk ($272 billion); Bezos ($211 billion), the founder of Amazon; and Arnault ($207 billion), the CEO of luxury brand LVMH, are the only people ahead of Zuckerberg.

Zuckerberg, 40, who launched Facebook in 2004, has much of his wealth tied to Meta Platforms stock. Shares of Meta (META) have surged by nearly 64% in 2024. On Wednesday, Meta shares gained 0.9% to close at a record high of $568.31. Meta shares dipped to $567.36 on Friday.

Meta operates popular social media platforms Facebook, Instagram and Threads, as well as instant messaging app WhatsApp.

Speaking on Wednesday at the Meta Connect 2024 event, Zuckerberg said Meta AI is on track to become the most used assistant in the world.

“We’re almost at 500 million monthly (active users), and we haven’t even launched in some of the bigger countries yet,” Zuckerberg said, referring to countries in the European Union.

Zuckerberg isn’t the only tech mogul to see a big jump in their fortune this year. Jensen Huang, CEO of Nvidia, and Larry Ellison, co-founder of Oracle, have seen their net worths surge in 2024 by $62.2 billion and $58.6 billion, respectively.

Source: CNN
 

Meta to spend up to $65 billion this year to power AI goals, Zuckerberg says​

Jan 24 (Reuters) - Meta Platforms (META.O), opens new tab plans to spend as much as $65 billion this year to expand its AI infrastructure, CEO Mark Zuckerberg said on Friday, aiming to bolster the company's position against rivals OpenAI and Google in the race to dominate the technology.

As part of the investment, Meta will ramp up hiring for artificial intelligence roles and build a more than 2-gigawatt data center that would be large enough to cover a significant part of Manhattan.

The company — among the top buyers of Nvidia's (NVDA.O), opens new tab sought-after AI chips — aims to end the year with over 1.3 million graphics processors and plans to bring about 1 GW of computing power online in 2025.

"This will be a defining year for AI," Zuckerberg said in a Facebook post. "This is a massive effort, and over the coming years it will drive our core products and business."

Big technology firms have been investing tens of billions of dollars to develop AI infrastructure after the success of OpenAI's ChatGPT.

Meta's announcement comes just days after U.S. President Donald Trump announced that OpenAI, SoftBank (9984.T), opens new tab and Oracle (ORCL.N), opens new tab will form a venture called Stargate and invest $500 billion in AI infrastructure across the U.S.

Earlier this month, Microsoft said it was planning to invest about $80 billion in fiscal 2025 to develop data centers, while Amazon.com (AMZN.O), opens new tab has said its 2025 spending would be higher than an estimated $75 billion in 2024.

"Zuckerberg is signaling to the market he does not want to be second in the AI race. The timing of the announcement was likely impacted by Stargate, which created urgency around sending a message," D.A. Davidson analyst Gil Luria said.

Shares of Meta were trading 1% higher.

The company has emerged as a big player in the AI race with its AI chatbot, Ray-Ban smart glasses and open-source approach, which sets it apart from rivals by allowing consumers and most businesses to use its Llama AI models for free.

Source: Reuters
 
Meta to spend hundreds of billions to build AI data centres

Meta's founder Mark Zuckerberg has said the social media giant will spend hundreds of billions of dollars on building huge AI data centres in the US.

The first multi-gigawatt data centre, called Prometheus, is expected to come online in 2026, Zuckerberg said.

He said one of the sites would cover an area nearly the size of Manhattan (59.1 sq km/22.8 sq miles).

Meta has invested heavily in efforts to develop what it called "superintelligence" - technology that it said could out-think the smartest humans.

The company, which has made most of its money from online advertising, generated more than $160bn in revenue in 2024.

In a post on his social media platform, Threads, Zuckerberg said Meta was building several multi-gigawatt clusters, and that one cluster, called Hyperion, could scale up to five gigawatts over several years.

"We're building multiple more titan clusters as well. Just one of these covers a significant part of the footprint of Manhattan," he added.

Prometheus will be built in New Albany, Ohio, while Hyperion will be built in Louisiana and is expected to be fully online by 2030, Zuckerberg said.

He said Meta would "invest hundreds of billions of dollars... to build superintelligence" and that the centres had been given "names befitting their scale and impact".

Karl Freund, principal analyst at Cambrian AI Research, told the BBC, "clearly, Zuckerberg intends to spend his way to the top of the AI heap".

"The talent he is hiring will have access to some of the best AI Hardware in the world," Freund added.

Meta shares were trading 1% higher following the announcement, Reuters news agency reported. The stock has risen more than 20% so far this year.

There are at least 10,000 data centres around the world hosting the cloud - remote servers that store digital information - with most of them located in the US, followed by the UK and Germany.

AI-driven data centres are extremely energy and water intensive. One study estimates that these centres could consume 1.7 trillion gallons of water globally by 2027. A single AI query - for example, a request to ChatGPT - can use about as much water as a small bottle you'd buy from the corner shop.

BBC
 
Where are all the Indian techies at?

And for how long will Pakistanis remain useless and be out of high tech deep research

 
Where are all the Indian techies at?

And for how long will Pakistanis remain useless and be out of high tech deep research

i dont know exactly what your getting at, but from my experience working with Pakistanis and indians, they generally have rubbish communication skills, they struggle with separating professional seniority from personal interactions, they alienate younger people and women and add maximal value at lower levels of team structures.

the exception to this is where they (indians in particular) are given carte blanche to hire as they like, in which case they fill their teams with indian men held hostage to work visas, then they recreate the team dynamics they were used to in india. pakistanis haven't made it in high enough numbers for me to generalise.
 
i dont know exactly what your getting at, but from my experience working with Pakistanis and indians, they generally have rubbish communication skills, they struggle with separating professional seniority from personal interactions, they alienate younger people and women and add maximal value at lower levels of team structures.

the exception to this is where they (indians in particular) are given carte blanche to hire as they like, in which case they fill their teams with indian men held hostage to work visas, then they recreate the team dynamics they were used to in india. pakistanis haven't made it in high enough numbers for me to generalise.
Thats only half the truth, there are lot of Indian techies that don’t care about such stuff and have amazing communication ,are there to work.
Jay Chaudhary ZScaler, The hotmail guy, then Aravind thr Perplexity AI, Windsurfer CEO..

Using one data point to call out Indian techies is. nonsense, many Indians are now actually involved in creating tech companies and first gen is involved in research.

Your pov seems more like a UK thing
 
I dont vet why people hate Zuckerberg. He is ironically one of my favourite entrepreneurs and I wish I could be like him.

The hate doesnt even make sense.

He created a social directory and knew how to market it perfectly. The winklewoss twins had no idea what they were actually doing. The idea stealing nonsense is crap as zuck had started working on Facebook before he met winklewoss. He only stole the idea of relationship status from them. Not the whole thing.

He then quickly realised Edvardo was a burden. Irl edvardo wasnt zuck's friend, just a business partner and edvardo did jack. He made one bank account and invested 19K but thats about it.

He had no clue about expanding or monetisation. Sean parker was the right call to make. After Sean, it was the correct decison to remove him to avoid bad publicity and partner with sherly sandberg who was more experienced in operations.

Lastly he was the only entrepreneur who focused on Acquisitions over innovation like bezos or Larry page did as they did it after their made a big company.

Zuckerberg acquiring Blake ross's company was genuis as ross had sold Firefox after creating it. Ross was the guy who could build the search engine for Facebook

Zuck has always acquired companies for talent Acquisitions rather then anything else. Its why he bought Instagram, Whatsapp and other companies like beacon and now Scale AI as he is more focused on acquiring talent that cam help him scale rather then acquiring the app itself.

One of the greatest entrepreneurs of all time who gets way too much hate for being a tough guy and causing layoffs or discarding people who otherwise would be a burden to his business.
 
I dont vet why people hate Zuckerberg. He is ironically one of my favourite entrepreneurs and I wish I could be like him.

The hate doesnt even make sense.

He created a social directory and knew how to market it perfectly. The winklewoss twins had no idea what they were actually doing. The idea stealing nonsense is crap as zuck had started working on Facebook before he met winklewoss. He only stole the idea of relationship status from them. Not the whole thing.

He then quickly realised Edvardo was a burden. Irl edvardo wasnt zuck's friend, just a business partner and edvardo did jack. He made one bank account and invested 19K but thats about it.

He had no clue about expanding or monetisation. Sean parker was the right call to make. After Sean, it was the correct decison to remove him to avoid bad publicity and partner with sherly sandberg who was more experienced in operations.

Lastly he was the only entrepreneur who focused on Acquisitions over innovation like bezos or Larry page did as they did it after their made a big company.

Zuckerberg acquiring Blake ross's company was genuis as ross had sold Firefox after creating it. Ross was the guy who could build the search engine for Facebook

Zuck has always acquired companies for talent Acquisitions rather then anything else. Its why he bought Instagram, Whatsapp and other companies like beacon and now Scale AI as he is more focused on acquiring talent that cam help him scale rather then acquiring the app itself.

One of the greatest entrepreneurs of all time who gets way too much hate for being a tough guy and causing layoffs or discarding people who otherwise would be a burden to his business.
Don’t think people hate Zuckerberg they hate Meta overall as a company from influencing elections to creating addiction like that of cig companies who get a lot of hate as well.

As a comp sci graduate , Meta is amazing they have given so many free stuff to open source just like Google.

Annoying company that has taken so much from opensource and not given back is Amazon.
 
Don’t think people hate Zuckerberg they hate Meta overall as a company from influencing elections to creating addiction like that of cig companies who get a lot of hate as well.

As a comp sci graduate , Meta is amazing they have given so many free stuff to open source just like Google.

Annoying company that has taken so much from opensource and not given back is Amazon.
Naw people despise Zuckerberg beyond belief and associate everything Meta does as his doing when in reality he only owns 13% of the company and is only responsible for the product itself.

Infact for 20 years hes made it clear that he tries to avoid the politics and board members bit unfortunately has to constantly get in trouble with the senator since he is the face of the brand. He only cares about the product itself.

I really like Zuck as an entrepreneur. Yes he did get extremely lucky as most people given his circumstances would have acquired millions but they wouldnt have scored it to a trillion dollar company.

They key trait of Zuck is that he operates like a mob boss. He acquires companies and talent itself to build features. and by the time they become a burden he discards them. While some might question the ethics of such Apple, McDonald's, Microsoft would have all failed if Wozniack, The og Mcdonald brothers and Paul Allen were allowed to run amok and gates, Ray kroc, Steve Jobs etc etc didnt take control.

He acquired beacon and asked the team he acquired to build Facebook messenger.

Similarly he acquired A company that Ross founded since Ross was the only one who could build a world class search engine in the same way he built Firefox.

He acquired Scale Ai as He knows Alexander wang is the only one who can turn Meta Ai from a joke that it currently is to the most advanced AI ecosystem on the planet.

Most entrepreneurs acquire to expand empires, he acquires to gather talent as the more talent you have, you're product will automatically improve as a result.
 
Thats only half the truth, there are lot of Indian techies that don’t care about such stuff and have amazing communication ,are there to work.
Jay Chaudhary ZScaler, The hotmail guy, then Aravind thr Perplexity AI, Windsurfer CEO..

Using one data point to call out Indian techies is. nonsense, many Indians are now actually involved in creating tech companies and first gen is involved in research.

Your pov seems more like a UK thing
yes, im talking from my own experience. indians in the uk fall into two categories, born and raised here, which are more in line with uk culture, or immigrants who invariably have terrible communication skills. its not uncommon for one hiring manager to replace everyone with indians in like a few months, anyone whos worked in the UK would have seen this, maybe other uk guys like @DeadlyVenom @KingKhanWC @shaz619 @Technics 1210 @Markhor @Bewal Express can give their two cents on this, if my experience is not the norm.

edit - just did a quick google and the first hit was a reddit post with thousands of upticks saying the same thing is happening in america too.
 
Naw people despise Zuckerberg beyond belief and associate everything Meta does as his doing when in reality he only owns 13% of the company and is only responsible for the product itself.

Infact for 20 years hes made it clear that he tries to avoid the politics and board members bit unfortunately has to constantly get in trouble with the senator since he is the face of the brand. He only cares about the product itself.

I really like Zuck as an entrepreneur. Yes he did get extremely lucky as most people given his circumstances would have acquired millions but they wouldnt have scored it to a trillion dollar company.

They key trait of Zuck is that he operates like a mob boss. He acquires companies and talent itself to build features. and by the time they become a burden he discards them. While some might question the ethics of such Apple, McDonald's, Microsoft would have all failed if Wozniack, The og Mcdonald brothers and Paul Allen were allowed to run amok and gates, Ray kroc, Steve Jobs etc etc didnt take control.

He acquired beacon and asked the team he acquired to build Facebook messenger.

Similarly he acquired A company that Ross founded since Ross was the only one who could build a world class search engine in the same way he built Firefox.

He acquired Scale Ai as He knows Alexander wang is the only one who can turn Meta Ai from a joke that it currently is to the most advanced AI ecosystem on the planet.

Most entrepreneurs acquire to expand empires, he acquires to gather talent as the more talent you have, you're product will automatically improve as a result.

He’s not celebrated much because he doesn’t have the aura of a macho playboy like Elon or Jeff.
 
yes, im talking from my own experience. indians in the uk fall into two categories, born and raised here, which are more in line with uk culture, or immigrants who invariably have terrible communication skills. its not uncommon for one hiring manager to replace everyone with indians in like a few months, anyone whos worked in the UK would have seen this, maybe other uk guys like @DeadlyVenom @KingKhanWC @shaz619 @Technics 1210 @Markhor @Bewal Express can give their two cents on this, if my experience is not the norm.

edit - just did a quick google and the first hit was a reddit post with thousands of upticks saying the same thing is happening in america too.

Indians are supposed to be best workers hence it makes sense.
 
He’s not celebrated much because he doesn’t have the aura of a macho playboy like Elon or Jeff.
I like Jeff Bezos because unlike Zuckerberg who got extremly lucky and only made it to the top due to his ability of having Zero morals,

Bezos actually worked hard. Yes bezos was given 500,000 but turning 500,000 into 2.8T is not easy. Its damn near hard.

Zuckerberg never had to worry about coding the platform alone as he had 4 coders. He never had to worry about marketing as he had edvardo do it for him. He never had to worry about investment, employee and office building as Sean parker did it for him.

Then he did not have to worry about structure as shelly samdberg took over and handled all the financial, Hr amd other aspects.

He was good at understand and improving his product + acquiring the right talent and discarding them when they became a burden. Also Facebook never struggled. It was a viral hit from the beginning and kept and kept improving.

Bezos had to actually hustle, his business didnt make a profit for years and most would have given up. For years, Ebay dominated Amazon repeatedly, And Fedex made it harder and harder to ship.

However bezos won because he reinvested wisely. Rather then getting obsessed with income, he would reinvest 100% of his income into logistics. He was control obsessed as he wanted Amazon to have its own logistics and not rely on 3rd party.

Afterwards he eventually took over as eBay kept relying on seller trust while Amazon controlled Fba + logistics and transport.

Afterwards Bezos shifted focus to Amazon web services and the rest is history. But 99% of people would have given up and dissolved their company if they were bezos.

But in zuck's case they likely would have become millionaires atleast since Zuck was extremely lucky with the initial support. Although they would have been taken over by another social media company due to lacking the acquisition mindset of zuck.

As for Elon, Elon is okay. He's overrated tbh. Yes he's no 1 but he kinda got lucky. He was a part of the PayPal team and was lucky enough to buy 2 companies that were already profitable and scaling extremely well.

Most of tesla success and Space X success is mostly due to modern era circumstances of electric vehicles, space travel and ai becoming the new trend rather then musk being a genius. He was just lucky to buy the right company lol. Still a great ceo and visionary but zuck and Jeff are better.

1) Jeff Bezos
2) Zuckerberg
3) Elon Musk

^^ This should be the ranking.
 
Indians are supposed to be best workers hence it makes sense.
in my experience, i wont say best, but the most competent workers are chinese, however they also have communication and cultural issues. best workers is difficult to quantify, it involves measuring soft skills, which becomes very pie in the sky.
 
yes, im talking from my own experience. indians in the uk fall into two categories, born and raised here, which are more in line with uk culture, or immigrants who invariably have terrible communication skills. its not uncommon for one hiring manager to replace everyone with indians in like a few months, anyone whos worked in the UK would have seen this, maybe other uk guys like @DeadlyVenom @KingKhanWC @shaz619 @Technics 1210 @Markhor @Bewal Express can give their two cents on this, if my experience is not the norm.

edit - just did a quick google and the first hit was a reddit post with thousands of upticks saying the same thing is happening in america too.
Yeah you are right about Indians hiring other Indians but they are also exceptionally hard working and good at their job. Communication skills can be built with time and from my experience many Indians work hard to improve in this area.

I try very hard to find negatives working with so many Indians but even for me it's difficult. I enjoy working alongside them.
 
yes, im talking from my own experience. indians in the uk fall into two categories, born and raised here, which are more in line with uk culture, or immigrants who invariably have terrible communication skills. its not uncommon for one hiring manager to replace everyone with indians in like a few months, anyone whos worked in the UK would have seen this, maybe other uk guys like @DeadlyVenom @KingKhanWC @shaz619 @Technics 1210 @Markhor @Bewal Express can give their two cents on this, if my experience is not the norm.

edit - just did a quick google and the first hit was a reddit post with thousands of upticks saying the same thing is happening in america too.
You can tell a born and raised Indian British born from a mile away. They don't have the "putt putt ding ding" accent, the bobble wobble head, that Indian immigrants do, in particular South Asians who claim to be some IT wizards. That heavy accent on T and pronouncing Z as J - BCCI Jindabad - is the one dead give away - and it takes decades to get out of - unless you're an Indian born in the UK.

That's how we in the UK (inc British born Pakistanis and Indians) spot a scammer from India in our industry Its all in their accent. Its the only tell tale sign, like the rings in a tree's trunk.

On another note - British born Pakistani and Indians get along just fine, they literally have more in common. The UK, as well as the cesspit scammers back home.

We are losing customers when they hear a proper cult desi Indian accent. Nuff said really.
 
No Indian tech has made it big outside of India. Not one.

Indians are losing the IT game. Indians have realised they are nothing but robots in a service driven Indian economy. It is Monkey see, Monkey say, Monkey do - where any manual task can be replaced by automation - AI!

This is why AI is about to rip the heart and soul out of IT India. It is happening right now. Those call centers will become relics of what was once pre-Modi India. Those scripts will become memories.

All those Indian - Shakuntala Devi - wannabes who think their brains are for hire - get real - you have been replaced with AI, Quantum computing, and Automated Experience.

In the UK, the winning business is adding the human touch in the AI world - and you better believe only the British born are the ones who connect with the natives of the UK - not the spreaders of Saffron.
 
You can tell a born and raised Indian British born from a mile away. They don't have the "putt putt ding ding" accent, the bobble wobble head, that Indian immigrants do, in particular South Asians who claim to be some IT wizards. That heavy accent on T and pronouncing Z as J - BCCI Jindabad - is the one dead give away - and it takes decades to get out of - unless you're an Indian born in the UK.

That's how we in the UK (inc British born Pakistanis and Indians) spot a scammer from India in our industry Its all in their accent. Its the only tell tale sign, like the rings in a tree's trunk.

On another note - British born Pakistani and Indians get along just fine, they literally have more in common. The UK, as well as the cesspit scammers back home.

We are losing customers when they hear a proper cult desi Indian accent. Nuff said really.
This may be topic for a different thread but I feel like UK Indians and Pakistanis are not as close as they were before. Many Indians have become more gorafied and able to enjoy the mainstream culture more whereas before we used to unite together as outsiders.
 
This may be topic for a different thread but I feel like UK Indians and Pakistanis are not as close as they were before. Many Indians have become more gorafied and able to enjoy the mainstream culture more whereas before we used to unite together as outsiders.
I don't have this problem with Indians born in the UK in the same generation as me.

My child hood Indian mates from Hounslow are the same, have never changed, who were with me celebrating my 5th birthday, as they were celebrating my 50th!

West side massif innit!
 
This may be topic for a different thread but I feel like UK Indians and Pakistanis are not as close as they were before. Many Indians have become more gorafied and able to enjoy the mainstream culture more whereas before we used to unite together as outsiders.

me experience British Pakistanis and indians have always been cordial acquaintances at best, british indians are very cliquey, their friends groups i have observed are almost always ethnically homogenous, i.e. the sikhs hang out with the sikhs, and likewise with gujratis, south indians, etc. i had a few indian friends when i was young, but they drifted away in my late teens.

at one point, prior to social media, british asians defined a loose somewhat homogenous culture around british bhangra, bollywood and cricket. but social media meant it was easier to stay connected back home and the local asian culture died out. british indians generally dont like to lumped in with british pakistanis, sri lankas, and bangladeshis as brit asians anymore imo.

Yeah you are right about Indians hiring other Indians but they are also exceptionally hard working and good at their job. Communication skills can be built with time and from my experience many Indians work hard to improve in this area.

I try very hard to find negatives working with so many Indians but even for me it's difficult. I enjoy working alongside them.

if we are talking about positives, then a lack of non-professional interaction is often a plus for desis, esp muslims, cos it means their personal beliefs, social preferences are rarely questioned, so they can keep their work life boundaries more easier.
 
No Indian tech has made it big outside of India. Not one.

Indians are losing the IT game. Indians have realised they are nothing but robots in a service driven Indian economy. It is Monkey see, Monkey say, Monkey do - where any manual task can be replaced by automation - AI!

This is why AI is about to rip the heart and soul out of IT India. It is happening right now. Those call centers will become relics of what was once pre-Modi India. Those scripts will become memories.

All those Indian - Shakuntala Devi - wannabes who think their brains are for hire - get real - you have been replaced with AI, Quantum computing, and Automated Experience.

In the UK, the winning business is adding the human touch in the AI world - and you better believe only the British born are the ones who connect with the natives of the UK - not the spreaders of Saffron.
Good try but let me put it where you understand best, not a single European company is doing anything AI wise .

Not go try again with your native born Brits, majority Indian get along fine with Pakistani born ones.
 
Good try but let me put it where you understand best, not a single European company is doing anything AI wise .

Not go try again with your native born Brits, majority Indian get along fine with Pakistani born ones.
You realise Canva literally purchased a UK company(Affinity) that was competing with Adobe right?

And Adobe is transitioning to AI? Photoshop, Illustrator and many other platforms have ai intergrated now and Adobe created firefly which is an ai image generation tool

Affinity was doing the same thing before canva purchased them
 
You realise Canva literally purchased a UK company(Affinity) that was competing with Adobe right?

And Adobe is transitioning to AI? Photoshop, Illustrator and many other platforms have ai intergrated now and Adobe created firefly which is an ai image generation tool

Affinity was doing the same thing before canva purchased them

Ai Integration? Literally every company is doing that , Is SAP an AI company now?

AI is a complete field and majority are only American or Chinese companies, that are solving AI problems from Memory , Robotics , Self Driving etc..
 
Ai Integration? Literally every company is doing that , Is SAP an AI company now?

AI is a complete field and majority are only American or Chinese companies, that are solving AI problems from Memory , Robotics , Self Driving etc..
Canva in Australia is competing with them as well.

Canva atm is literally leading when it comes to Ai visuals
 
I don't have this problem with Indians born in the UK in the same generation as me.

My child hood Indian mates from Hounslow are the same, have never changed, who were with me celebrating my 5th birthday, as they were celebrating my 50th!

West side massif innit!
When will you grow up and start acting your age? On your 60th?
 
Back
Top