CerealFounder

Youre both right and wrong. Its much simpler.

These people are pissed off, simply because theyre being told to be pissed off. There is no nuance, culture is what we are told at scale. Its why everyones pissed off. Anger is the easiet engagement to bait and advertising based businesses at scale are powered by engagement.

Who is "the left?" This conversation is about a specific person doing a specific act. Unless you have a specific example of something you disagree please try not to reduce the standard of discourse up in here.

Curious to all those family power users. What would you want to see in the next gen WhatsApp?

LOL A criminal fine. Is there anything more insane than nobody being personally responsible for committing a crime. Like an institution woke up and developed cognition.

I think you're longing for a US that never was. Its always been about who has "the right power" and who doesnt. Everything from Mccarthyism to the Salem Witch Hunt.

it also stands to be said that America doesnt exist as America, instead as a revolving door of loosely defined groups that step up to the levers of power and try their luck.

Its best to understand the actors instead of the machine. Its most often where the problem is.

This isnt even true. A conversation is just two people presenting their own versions of an idea to you (like documentaries). Sure the conversation can morph the ideas you take away, but in the end if you're worried about the packaging of an idea or information literally any conversation with an "other" is subject to rhetoric like any other medium.

LOL. Should some dude in Montana get to use an iPhone because it was funded in California?

The selective "my tax dollars would never" is anti-american

There is pretty powerful statistical evidence that when Regan moved homeless services from the federal level to a state responsibility it cratered the numbers of beds (especially in small towns) and created an unsolvable situation in that when you're struggling in your small town who has zero homeless support, you make a move to some place else, somewhere where being homeless is not has bad weather wise and has a bit of infrastructure. So now you have all of the struggling people from "Mainstreet usa" moving toward the main cities all at once (over a couple decades) an essentially a burden on them to deal with EVERYONES homeless problem instead of historically their own.

This problem was working much better in the 70s and 80s when their was a national framework for it. While SF and LA's government is flawed, this blame state/city is like blaming the individual ushers when the fans run on the field after a football upset. It was more of a structural failure than a local.

Ive seen it as a combo of too things. Confidence of ignorance and there is nothing more motivating to succeed than feeling low social status and feeling like you should be higher.

How do you downvote comments? Sweeping statements like this are political in nature and should be banned.

Is it? It only becomes a problem retroactively. It's like two athletes, one out plays the value of his contract and the other underplays.

Do you think both deals should be reworked after theyve been inked based on outcome?

This is an awful take. You dont know anything about the dynamic of their relationship or even how Scotts direct actions affected Bezos decisions or ability to function. What if Scott was the reason he felt he could take a bigger swing or if with her by his side he was able to maintain a family and his business goals.

I know your intention isnt sexist but even the idea that the role of partner should be arbitrated on a case by by case basis leaves the person who volunteered not to pursue further education in financial and business matters with the burden of having to explicitly articulate their financial contributions.

A relationship is an open eyed partnership and this idea that the opportunity cost on the person who stays home is just earnings is toxic to entrepreneurs who want to chase their dreams and build a stable family

Im not sure why this is downvoted, especially on a site like HN. If you had a CEO that was anti tracking CAC and just said, doing marketing is enough. The corporate culture of employees would drift toward not tracking CAC (cost of acquisition), even though none of the employees are obligated to buy into that.

The thing that is lost on the national vs state debate is that the presidents role in a our state powered republic is mostly a sales job. Selling culture, building confidence, recruiting domestic and abroad. Having a new culture changes things whether you agree with the change or not. It's not a political statement, it's how the country works.

This barely solves anything. All public people get screenshoted and once this rolls out, I imagine someone will find a way to screenshot all tweets.

HN is a huge community and I imagine full of ex-employees of Twitter, what exactly does the organization believe the businesses core focus/value is? Like what is the framework they are growing towards?

This feels like a sensible conclusion. With borders closed and human to human contact relegated to only your closest family the whole annual mechanism for spreading flu (often season and triggered by air travel) goes to zero.

This an interesting original take, bravo.

Death is clearly an evolutionary result as species all live in a different range of lifespans. It can neatly argued that we are now seeing consequences of this just by extending lifespans from 60 to mid 80s in both economics and governance.

It's always nice when HN truly shifts a perspective.

Have one internet on me today.

"If I had more time, I would have written a shorter letter." - Marky Mark Twain

The irony of the guy who angrily groups all satire as"galatic'ally asshole'ish"should be rewarded with upvotes.

Also, entertainment is both plural and singular jb. Like sheep.

No no no, you ID'd a very important issue but dont go far enough.

You are not only right (as a CEO who def has some narcissism), but charisma \ narcissism is like crazy \ eccentric. The term changes historically post success. It becomes revisionism.

Going from 0 to 1 requires a ton of luck, but really the it's the belief that outsiders are wrong about the statistical odds from going from 0 to 1 and sticking with it till it works or you break. It takes an unreasonable personality to get there and then that unreasonable personality has to adapt to a more measured one to protect the turf. Its ironic but the sword that gets most startups early success kills it eventually.

Innovation in general is hard to do without outlier personalties in this realm.

I dont have a great solution, but I can confidently say that unreasonable people both change the world and torture loved ones.

I dont get why. If you want the upside of businesses of scale (profits) why would you not get the downside of criminality at scale?

This is a moralistic version of privatize the gains and socialize the losses.

Im not even a big law and order guy, but the "go easy, boys will be boys" take seems baseless.

Its just doesn't seem like the culture.

I think in 100 years this general thought will be something we look back on as obvious and the denial of it barbaric.

It's not semantics.

If you killed someone committing their own separate crime, you'd be both a killer and potentially a hero.

It is important to make clear he both committed a very serious crime and potentially blew the whistle in act of bravery.

This is it. These people are money managers that market based on owning x amount of one of the top 50 companies each year in order to raise a new fund. If they take smaller % the model fails both executively and from a marketing perspective.

You;'re right, but I think you're seeing China finally being taken seriously for the future and with that comes and expectation of reciprocity of commerce. If you want to fight to be the most important economy/culture you no longer can ask up to bring a knife to a gun fight.

Naw. Tax the profit. It's wild that the tax payer base doesn't seen ANY upside with grants and what not like this.

True, but dont underestimate how little effort he's made to anything but growing revenue.

It's all just legacy from the insane power dynamic that comes from a relatively broke entrepreneur and an investor with money. The only thing that seems to stem true about the myth about "founders should be paid too much" is that when you suddenly have more resources than you ever had, you tend to be exposed to new distractions.

Dont confuse this administration for the "US Government"there has always been graft, but it has NEVER been like it is right now.

What? I was implying punitive measures in general, but the logic on COVID in jail seems to be a bad one. If you can't be in public and respect the spread of the virus, at what point do we take you out of circulation until the danger has passed?

The same argument can be made about violence. If you commit violence against another human you go to prison, but violence rates are significantly higer in prison, so are you implying we dont send them there?

Also, my topline comment is getting CRUSHED. Very surprising.