SandersAK

Any chance for an edit?

I think what JL is bringing up here is important because there is no room for naysayers with this exit. It's a monumental achievement, (for anyone!) but particularly a big F YOU to all the rampant misogny and boys-club culture that persists in tech among investors.

I don't speak for women, but I will say as a mostly-white dude, I have never thought "are there even CEOs or founders that look like me?" whereas I have, through the years, heard that many many times from women and POC.

What Tracy and her team have done is really fantastic. The fact that she's a woman is important only in that it begins the process of shutting up the old boys club, and (hopefully) a sign of things to come for those people who haven't traditionally been given the benefit of the doubt.

Alternative treatment of violence is not the same as saying there are "no consequences" - it's acknowledging that to actually "cure" violent behavior requires other methods.

Removing people from society has historically not stopped violence (see Gulags, mass prison, etc). What it does do is instill a sense of fear in the populace that the governing power can use as a form of control. A sense of fear brought on by, you guessed it, a threat of violence!

Am I missing something?

If you think Amazon is competing on just "goods sold" then yes, at this fixed point in time, Walmart is much bigger and better at that.

If you are thinking that online sales will eclipse retail in the near future (even groceries: http://www.nielsen.com/tz/en/insights/news/2017/grocery-e-co...), and that this is an inflection point in buyer behavior, then Walmart is a leader who will run out of gas soon, and Amazon is just hitting their stride.

I don't know how much money you have, but if you or your family had a life-long expensive disease, can you say that given the current medical coverage offered at the current prices, you would be financially secure?

It's not a criticism to your ability to save or manage your money. Please dont' take it that way :)

This guy's a mug. And anyone who thinks financial security for one is something that can be done independent of a community is full of it, or a hustler protecting previously accrued assets.

If a person is paying $1000 a month, and sees a 2% increase every year and can afford it, but then can't afford a 100% increase in one year, are you saying they made bad economic decisions? OR that they should have anticipated the housing market to shift so drastically?

Of course not, because, as you said, it is absurd to not consider ones actual economic status.

Wrt to the newly homeless who have been evicted - i think it is convenient to chalk this up to market economics, but the truth is that zoning, housing, and rental laws have created an environment where you are seeing mass displacement of people. You may say "well that's the market" but you might feel different if it was you and yours. It also trivializes the value those people bring to their communities, and the lag effect in economic production their displacement will invariably produce. Longer commutes = less productivity (http://www.cityam.com/265145/heres-just-much-impact-long-com...).

I don't disagree that you need to consider economic status, but in that vein, it's worth considering that housing laws help us define the values we want in a community and sometimes those are not always economic.

At the end of the day, there is pretty conclusive evidence that building more affordable housing is good for cities.

The reasons you're bringing up are strawmen at best. The people who are homeless or on the brink of homelessness are not complaining about artisanal food stuffs.

In Oakland, a family of 4 has been living in a single family home for 15 years. This year, after new owners purchased the property, the rent went up 100% in one year. Needless to say, they are facing a housing crisis where they will be homeless.

If you want to understand the severity of the situation, I suggest just literally googling "homelessness housing crisis bay area" and read all the both qualitative and quantitive reporting done on the issue.

Here's a brief stat overview to refute your claim that it's a "mental issue" primarily: http://www.socialsolutions.com/blog/2016-homelessness-statis...

Capital As A Service is, by definition, what VC is. You give capital as a service to your startups.

I'm not sure (yet) what is novel about this approach, but if it's "shotgunning money into things based on a set of rules" they might as well just call themselves YC-lite.

He literally never mentions her.

But I and others would argue that Rodin stole techniques and inspiration from Camille Claudel. She was never in her lifetime recognized as a great artist (or at the least, Rodin's equal), even though it was clear to him and many others that she as an incredible talent.

French art society routinely rejected her work and refused to give her commissions.

The narrative is that after their 10 year tryst she "went mad" and was committed to an institute where she died, which might sound like a familiar historical narrative to you, especially about talented women during this time period.

Articles like this wash women in history out of the conversation and are gross. They find the bits of history they want to celebrate and ignore the harder truths that led to a fascinating (but tragic) creative process.

Sources for all the "yeah but source" people: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2017/feb/26/camille...

https://www.amazon.com/CAMILLE-CLAUDEL-Life-Odile-Ayral-Clau...

Though I don't agree with or support self-help / Tim Ferris types personally, I'm open to the idea that this guy has some key insight into branding for startups, but this content doesn't really have any of that.

I appreciate a hustler as much as anyone, but this guy doesn't stand out from your generic Tim Ferris / Gary Vee snake oil lifestyle sellers.

I will just in case someone actually reads into your reply some genuine curiosity: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/09/business/media/the-return-...

Also, I worked in journalism for years and have met with and worked with most of the major media entities, specifically around editorial and business model, so I guess technically I'm a source too.

"A huge number of well-meaning whites fear that they are closet racists, and this book tells them they are not. It's going to make them feel better about things they already think but do not know how to say.” —regarding his book, Losing Ground, quoted in “Daring Research or Social Science Pornography?: Charles Murray,” The New York Times Magazine, 1994

“The professional consensus is that the United States has experienced dysgenic pressures throughout either most of the century (the optimists) or all of the century (the pessimists). Women of all races and ethnic groups follow this pattern in similar fashion. There is some evidence that blacks and Latinos are experiencing even more severe dysgenic pressures than whites, which could lead to further divergence between whites and other groups in future generations.” —The Bell Curve, 1994

updating for the angry: hate speech, as in "fighting words," which is to say language used to incite violence towards a specific person.

There are dozens of papers written about this - but the main thought exercise is to just consider that if the "truth" was the core value of media, of course they would double down on it.

Media barons didn't hire journalists because they were ethical and factually accurate. They created that narrative because otherwise those people wouldn't churn out relevant and timely content to suit their readership. When the readership changes, media follows it. There is no intrinsic value in serving up the truth as it pertains to stock price.

Now you may argue that places like the NYT are the exception. But even here, this high falutin branding is there only to justify the power of ads for a different (read: intellectual) audience. If the NYT was forced to focus on one of their verticals today, would it be news? No. It would be food, fashion, and lifestyle because that's what drives all their traffic.