You should probably read the filing. First, these aren’t options, it is straight up stock and it does vest.

Second, even if they were options, they definitely vest, otherwise Pichai would never gain control to be able to use them as collateral for a loan.

What you might be thinking is that they never get exercised, which is when the person uses the option to actually buy the share. But even that isn’t as straightforward as you seem to be making it out to be. The money to actually pay the interest on those loans and that is usually done by selling stock acquired this way. And then that income is almost certainly subject to AMT as well as other special taxes in California.

Sundar's stock is not in the form of options, so this explanation is irrelevant.

These ultra wealthy folks don’t need highly volatile investments like crypto. They are mostly seeking to reduce volatility rather than hit home runs.

The cloud business is also doing quite well. Waymo is generating revenue now as well. So not just ads.

So how much is the American household spending on Waymo, in average? It's totally insignificant.

The value of Waymo isn't current revenue, it's whether it works reliably and whether it can be scaled.

Is it profitable?

Cloud is profitable. Waymo not, but is building. In any event, the grandparent was talking about revenue.

Which is completely meaningless. Anyone can sell a bunch of one dollar bills for 50 cents

That was the proper takeaway during Amazon.com’s preprofit stages.

These aren’t options, but you are otherwise correct.

“I have no data, but I’m sure those who do have data, and have spent a significant amount of time analyzing it, are wrong.”

Well, touché. But I'm willing to change my mind once I've seen that data and the methodology Svelto used to analyze it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

There is only one problem with the term "microslop" coming out of Microsoft.

It should be called "macroslop", just after the amount that company is putting out there.

And C++ library specific as well. Perhaps even more so.

I think it is a question of who is getting the benefit of these efficiencies. If it is the worker—ie they are doing the same amount of work in less time but not making that extra time available to the company—then from the company’s perspective they aren’t being more efficient. Or at least the additional efficiency doesn’t affect it.

It might be more precisely stated something like "The language's semantics require that when a variable changes value, that change includes the side-effect of printing the new value."