asdfasdfa11112

No, but I bet he could talk about the messy complexities of the Apple supply chain. Can technical CEOs do that?

My point isn't to get into a skills based dick measuring contest, but rather to point out that even at huge technology companies*, is being technically adept really a requirement for the job?

Another one for discussion: is Apple a "technology" company? I put forth that a company is defined by the most difficult problem they need to solve / continually solve in order to stay in business. That tells me Apple is more of a manufacturing/ marketing company than technology.

If the pool is still there, it gets reused. If not, a new one is created.

It should help with overhead, but not always. There's benefits to partial solutions sometimes, if you can avoid the side effects.

free with uberconf branding.

Most products I've seen are "good enough" and have trade-offs with their competition. Infrequently have I seen a product that's head and shoulders above.

So companies get the checkboxes in features, then when I'm deciding between the finalists, stuff like this is a tie-break.

In other words, company culture is a differentiator, especially in a commodity product market.

It's tricky to separate the negative effects of the drug itself from the negative effects of the legal / cultural / class-based context.

In the case where your device was compromised and used in a botnet attack, wouldn't you need to prove damages? I'm just curious what that argument would look like to a layperson.

I suspect the average person wouldn't get too riled up to hear that their internet connection was used to block someone's website, as long as they don't notice it in their service quality.

Another tangent -- do any sophisticated botnet systems throttle their connection during an attack to minimize impact on the device/network owner?

[edit - in case it's not clear, I'm admittedly ignorant about this kind of stuff, so I was just curious if anyone else can shed some light]

My best tip is to not try one thing to grow your startup. Try everything.

This means that you have to do things very, very cheaply. Think of each growth hack as a single tactic. Execute in < 10 hours of work. Push into the wild.

You cannot know what will work, before you try it. What worked for others won't necessarily work for you.

How do you live in a world where any one thing you do is 90% likely to fail? You do a lot of 'one things', very cheaply, and when one of them hits, you exploit it.

Growth is a process, one very much dependent on speed. Think in terms of a growth system, not growth tactic or hack.

(this is what I call a strategy)

Thank you for taking the time to write this. Honestly, it makes a lot of sense.

I don't have any experience with billion dollar companies. Have you worked in the industry and seen how they measure their campaign efficacies in huge companies? I bet it's really different than what I've seen.

Based on what I've seen, it's a lot of story telling that "branding" works. The question is, does it work better than if the company had put those resources into other avenues? Improve the product. Decrease the cost to consumer. Better customer service.

Here's a good cro vs. branding article, check out the Intel Inside section. [0].

There's a lot of money being made by people working in branding. If their field actually wasn't very effective, I wonder if it would be possible for them to accept it. I generally wouldn't want to find out that my career has essentially been a waste, and I created no value. (insert sinclair quote here)

[0] https://conversionxl.com/cro-vs-branding/

The problem with a brand is that you don't know if it's the most effective use of the resources that go into it.

Coca Cola has nearly infinite resources, compared to the jobs I've worked (<$75mm annual revenue).

Even then, can they prove the value of their brand is an effective use of their marketing dollars? What I've read has a lot of correlations that could be explained by other causes.

For a good read on this, check out the Intel Inside section on this article: https://conversionxl.com/cro-vs-branding/

I don't know much about how branding works at that scale. But I don't think it's very effective for small/medium companies, and can be quite a money sink.

In nearly every SMB branding exercise/project I've participated in, the need for a brand, and the benefits it provides, are entirely limited to the egos of the employees.

It is important, from a high level, that innovation occur in limited scale. That prevents bad things from cascading everything.

If you are serious with your question, instead of just trying to jockey for hacker forum dominance, a very quick google search will answer your question. It is possible that I misunderstood your Q, and your tone, and if so, I apologize.

I searched google.com for "increased antibiotic resistance over time" and found two sources that seem pretty legit. One is the World Health Organization, the other is the US National Library of Medicine. Both articles appear to address the question I believe you raised.

[0] http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs194/en/ [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4378521/

This is called a "moat". Build it for your company, it's a good thing for an entrepreneur.

To be significantly successful, you need to stop thinking this way. Start thinking about what benefits you & your company.

It may seem like contempt for the consumer, and perhaps it is. But it's also possible the consumer is irrational and you can benefit in the short and long term.

I work in marketing, and have seen scant evidence for the value of a "brand". It's mostly branding people making an argument that comic sans devalues our brand, whereas the data clearly shows it doesn't.

The "long term harm" argument is indistinguishable from "i know better than you and I want it this way." It may be true, but it's unprovable.

This is an interesting example of confirmation bias, specifically the Halo effect.

When you say "support", do you mean by giving him ad revenue from your page view? What if this author were espousing something you already believe in?

Personally, I find those other views different than my own. I still found this article entertaining and interesting.

This only holds true if the physical only identifies disease that have downside risk. More realistically, most early identification situations can greatly reduce the cost of future care, eg the overweight 40 y.o. who intervenes to avoid being the obese 60 yo.

It also ignores a number of other selection criteria and behavioral issues, which you are honest enough to note in your pretend for a moment intros.

However, people who proactively care for their health carry "upside risk" as well as downside, which your scenario does not account for.

Right, the author is priming his audience with the lens color through which they want their readers to see the rest of the story.

This is more honest when it doesn't involve an unrelated (especially negative) connotation.

Doesnt this limit you to at least a 50 ms response time, before your CPU can "trust" the data? (before/current/next required to smooth before handing off to processing?)

Argument is that Tesla has more representative / real world data.

Big public opinion perspective here too.

Is there evidence that Intel Inside had a margin gain for the CPU product? Although not the tone of this article, the graphics suggest the II branding campaign had so much less to do with their growth than general computing trends.[0]

To answer your Intel/TV ad question more directly: because there are a lot of people on Intel's payroll whose salary directly depend on them placing ads on TV.

I do not demand you see my perspective, not even sure that's how I see it. But really, how do we know that Intel's branding campaign was valuable to them? It seems obvious, but if it's super obvious, it should be easy to explain.

[0] https://conversionxl.com/cro-vs-branding/

Revision of distant childhood memories is very common. We all trust our memories too much, especially in a legal context. Childhood memories are just as, if not more, malleable.

It's more useful to think of memories as Michael Bay's version of "Pearl harbor".

People who are familiar with, and use Perl on a regular basis, are already aware. (TLDR: never capitalize the full PERL; the language is Perl, the executable is perl, and anyone with much experience understands and communicates this difference.)

It is worth noting this SO answer[0], which is a reasonable heuristic when people are talking about Perl. (And, IMO, one of the few times to ignore pedantry is when it's being used as a Shibboleth[1]).

[0] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/72312/how-should-i-capita...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shibboleth

Do you think it is possible for this to be sorted out by science? It seems non-nullifiable, which generally puts it in the not-science category when I think of social science.

Do you think it's possible that your (well-thought-out) post could replace "people are well characterized by being on one side of a dichotomy" with "people are more comfortable thinking they are on one side of a dichotomy", without losing any resolution?

It is a feature, not a bug, that American government moves slowly. Magnified by how much faster our world turns cmp to even 50 years ago.

This feature smoothes over the jagged lines of voters opinions. It also frustrates the righteous and unrighteous, because both desire bending to their values immediately.

If you are in the US, what is your opinion on the common prison trope that smokes are money in prisons?

I, also, feel much better when I capitalize on the placebo effect. I take Vitamin D every day, but days I forgot, I become grumpy and depressed.

That isn't to say that your sugar-free experience isn't meaningful, significant, or impacts your life.

My point is that your sugar-free lifestyle results are indistinguishable from placebo. Or little green moon men, really.

This, introspection is apowerful tool.

So its a process I need to adapt several of my dev teams to adopt?

We just got in a new agile rhythmn.

This assumes correct diagnoses. In your case, the cost was lost years of correctable, sub-optimal brain chemistry. To a kid unnecessarily prescribed amphetamines, the cost is a life with a malformed brain.

The issue at hand is how to balance the outcomes. Based on increased prescription rates (600k diagnosed in 1990 to 3.5 million in 2012 [0]), it seems probable to me that we've passed the breakeven point. I bet that increase in diagnoses corresponds with an increase in marketing spend for these drugs, which is another indicator that gives me pause.

You as an adult were able to decide for yourself. Many diagnosed nowadays are young; they do not have the ability to give informed consent to the medication, nor the ability to roll back the effects. Younger brains are more easily harmed as well.

Further complicating the fact is that it requires an assessment of relative importance: is it better to harm by inaction (your situation) or by over-action?

It's really hard to try and fairly balance these and other issues that I'm sure I'm missing. However, thank you for sharing; although uncomfortable, I thought about the issue from a perspective that quickly embarrassingly had not previously occurred.

[0] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/health/the-selling-of-atte...

It was under basically the same regulatory regime that Purdue Pharma marketed Oxycontin 12-hour extended release as a drug unlikely to cause abuse.

It wasn't that long ago that Phen-Phen (sp?) was legally marketed and sold.

We currently allow prescription of extraordinarily strong methamphetamine to children, who often spend their formative years under the influence.

---

We still have a long ways to go.