Skibb

haha priceless :)

That's really something, thanks for sharing.

It will eventually. Vinkle-Loss twins are not exactly an omen of success. And what currency has a director?? Sounds like someone got carried away a bit.

Meant to say "unproven", heat of the moment typo :)

You are the one confused. Do you understand the difference between analog and digital? Analog is a direct imprint of the photons that pass through the lense of the camera and have a chemical reaction with the film (simply put). A digital version is a COPY of the image that passes through the lens in the digital camera and by way of that it is already one time manipulated. In any case, I'm not saying I am the only one right here but that it's possible to look at it from different points of views. My overarching goal was to show that the whole claim of the edited photo not deserving a prize was irrelevant - photos are edited daily, every time and that does not take away from their aesthetic, documentary or other value if they are pulled off greatly. Short version: yes, even looking from your angle, the writer could have said the same about ANY photo, analog or digital, arguing that because the light in the photo looked different than what it would look in reality (and don't forget that a human eye is a sort of an imperfect camera itself) it isn't worthy of recognition.

I'm not getting into any propaganda issues here as that is proven. The writer only pointed out that MAYBE some lighting has been altered in the photo that won the award. So what. Maybe it was even cropped a little. Gasp.

Only everything?

Of course it was digitally edited. Since the advent of the digital photography, the very act of taking a photograph (i.e. digitalised version of it) is editing of sorts.

So the photo someone took was later edited in order to look better? Shocking.

People might be lying and also 3 people is not "many" ;)

Why do you think this is related to language? We don't think in words, we think in images.

Now if we were to presuppose that cultural priming has something to do with this, we might be closer to the truth (i.e. people in Western world have carrot as an archetype of vegetables, while people in e.g. Philippines might see cabbage as the representative of veggies).

I don't understand the line of thinking that strong opposing opinion = jealousy. Why are you trying to project your own thinking patterns onto me? I have nothing to be jealous about. Not everything in life is about getting a billion of $. My strong feelings are sparked by the fact that the article and some individual place so much importance in selling a company for $1bn, for the very small reason (at least!) that 99% of you won't even get a chance to do it. Entreprenurial spirit is a reward in itself! And Instagram lacks it through the very fact that it was established without so much as a vision of creating any cash-flow. Which in turn just makes its glorification a target for scoffing.

Also, vapid according to dictionary: Offering nothing that is stimulating or challenging. Guess you're right. It was challenging to read the whole thing till the end.

That is so true and I already got -2 points for trying to same the same thing in another comment.

Well it IS Vanity Fair after all.

which makes the sale of Shitagram slap in the face to all startups which actually have, oh I dunno, a business model lol

Indeed, writing is vapid at best.

Ugh this is linkbait and upvote-bait if I ever saw one. The whole tone of the article is so contrived and fake-mysterious that it's kind of digusting. Basically the whole thing can be tracked down to a rich privileged white kid doing what rich privileged kids do. NOTHING worth reading about here. And the shitty app could maybe start about thinking of getting some cash flow.

Exactly, maybe they should've taught him to give good arguments for his opinions or something such. His article can be broke down to: "MBAs need to change bc they are already worthless! How? Don't ask me, I just feel stupid for paying 100k bucks for nothing"

ugh you beat me to it!

Truth is MBAs are inflated hullaballoo whose exorbitant price for offering semi useful drivel may have worked in the time of all-is-fine-and-dandy but in today's unstable economic world where lean is mean (in good sense) it's just anachronistic.

This is completely overshadowing the fact that Facebook, in its befuddled attempt to spark monetization, started charging for messages to people you're not a friend with (unless you don't want it to end up in the Other inbox, most users are not even aware of).

Indeed.

Tim, it's ok, we get it, you love your own book. Calm down babe. ;)

Joking aside, the book has some very interesting ideas and personally has inspired me to seek change in my professional and personal life. Although, a blueprint everyone can follow word by word it's not.

Generalizing title is generalizing. The title actually proves the point it's trying to make: that news often skew towards less details, dramatized, click-bait-y. Of course news are bad for you as most of the information is not directly important to your immediate life and usually the information is presented in a very toxic way which creates a certain mood and actually, an addiction to the certain "SMH" behaviour.

Plagiarism aside, it's really funny :)