Does it require the members have voting rights?
15,241 karma · joined September 21, 2011
Strong opinions, weakly held--sometimes, held weekly.
Contact me at: username at angersock dot com.
"The modern social web is a miracle of progress but also a status-driven guilt-spewing shit volcano." --Paul Ford
Does it require the members have voting rights?
The obvious biological markers are no longer requirements, so why not.
Be prepared to demonstrate some kind of technical competence (online code, writing, whatever), and please don't join to shill your products, projects, or spam news articles, content marketing, or political stuff.
* Final demise of Moviepass, leads to "wait, losing on transactions and making it up on volume doesn't actually work" and scaring investors
* Magic Leap dies because there's no way to recoup their investment at this point, scares off "Well, awesome tech will save the day" investors
* Uber follows close behind, scares off "Well, breaking the law will save the day" money
* Twitter finally dies because of lack of monetization strategies and general consumer backlash, may kick off general death of social media space.
This is my rough guess for how it'll play out.
I wouldn't pull too hard on that thread here, though.
(I'm posting from Houston.)
This is a great example of an academic nondistinction that is completely worthless in practical matters.
Elixir is compiled, the other two are interpreted.
JS is supported natively by all browsers and is at its core an event-driven functional language, the other two are not.
Ruby is probably the comfiest OOP language out there, and certainly the one with the best standard library.
These are not the same languages.
If you don't have kids, you don't create taxpayers, and then society can't pay.
"You might not be interested in politics, but politics is interested in you."
More seriously, though, the highbrow dismissal of very real problems as tribalism on the same site that frequently has slapfights over technology and news/advertising spam of various forms seems a little much.
Like, if the answer is just "Hey, knock it off we don't want flamewars" that's totally respectable...but the other arguments you've used come off as really smug and out-of-touch.
If you offer tiny or no equity, they have no incentive to align for growth. Also, founders are usually way less useful than the people they hire.
If the owners don't want something public, it's trivial to lock it down--they might as well freak out when somebody uses the wrong door to enter the front of their shop.
I liked the post, but I'm not sure that I agree.
People are too concerned with perfect software.
So, real talk, why do you think concerns over YC working with a government with super shaky human-rights record are unimportant or unfounded?
A valid answer is totally "Because we're gonna make money and nobody complaining is in a position to actually do anything."
What do you think about it?
For reference, this is the market they're excited about joining:
http://time.com/5366225/china-uighurs-detention-report/
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/02/ch...
http://time.com/5366225/china-uighurs-detention-report/
A million Uyghur and Muslims in camps. That's a sixth of a Holocaust.
Alternately, by removing yourself from your community you failed to give them examples that would've broadened their horizons.
Like, this is one form of problem with today's filter bubbles--they help polarize communities by preventing the natural mechanisms of discovery and compromise that are required for groups of humans to coexist in meatspace.