bksenior

If you dig in, a lot of the advantage is niche specific knowledge and experience. So a first time entrepuner who knows his corner of the world exceedingly well is more likely to succeed than a 30 yr old Babson grad who learned about the problem via Mail Chimp.

Honestly the bigger problem is that it DESTROYS value for middle men so badly that there are a ton of reasons not to do it. In any consumer product that sells a story or a history the idea of checking ones work has only potential destroy value.

Yea, the Microsoft anti-trust years would love to have a sit down with you.

Facebooks real existential threat is just that . He thinks that having everything he wants now is correlated to the future. He should call his bud Billy Gates and see how not playing 5 moves ahead with the government worked out.

Facebook as almost insured that it becomes the whipping post of the FAANG companies as the government wants to look hard on tech. Im genuninely not sure what Zuck can do as long as Apple, Google and Amazon don't make mistakes in the same way.

The next 10 years are going to be a lot like the old ad age about being chased out of a campsite by a bear. It's unimportant to be the fastest (best) of the group, you just cant be the slowest.

This is terrible for a hotel. Charge back % spikes is a great way to get dropped by a credit card company.

Given enough time one-side ALWAYS wins out. Those that are desperate and have nothing to lose.

Please, nobody would ever know how difficult it is. The problem is that a century of draconian enforcement has created a MASSIVE private complex that feeds and pays so many people that the interests have rooted in the system.

Don't be fooled, the lack of progress is almost exclusively a product of vested interest in enforcement and this vague intellectual question of "how?"

Unpopular Opinion (but similar): If the ISPs win and the rules get rescinded, I think we are looking at their ultimate poison pill. An egregious push like this ends up stoking an unprecedented backlash at about the time that we see a bit of a swing in midterm elections that create less conservative leaning legislation and we finally get rules written that promote localized community broadband and essentially the end of their monopoly. As stated, I think they are pretty much making money like a monopoly now and as they push further I think they are gonna get "Ma 'Bell'd."

This martyr narrative is tired.

The truth is that most companies once they get to series A fold for much more binary reasons that are almost never saving a few $1000 a month on the founders salaries. Additionally there are easy ways to turn your salary into a draw that ebbs and flows in times of cash flow crunches if thats a concern.

Ultimately a founder should just pay themselves what they want. The companies rise happens on the backs of the their judgement so I dont know why we are using some irrelevant framework for this particular decision. Like everything from raising money to hiring, create a narrative and then use it to optimize your target outcome.

It's also important to note the founder isnt entitled to struggle as a species. In fact you can build an incredible company and ask to maintain a quality of life.

If you can afford it pay yourself market or more and you think it will make you happier or more effective, do it!

In the end tolerance for pain isn't the skill that defines a great founder its the progress. Pay yourself whatever the hell you want as long as you keep doing good work.

I skimmed the cover page. If you shower at night are the advantages tracked to be local to only that moment or does it have a prolonged general benefit?

The invention of TV dinners and the preservative revolution is the best parallel ive seen compared to the invention of the internet from a regulation and unintended consequence perspective.

He didnt read the article. Dont feed the trolls.

Not really, you are a Pavlovian animal in every aspect of your life. Everyone is.

That fact is not mutually exclusive to having integrity or living a thoughtful life though.

She and the majority of investors that write about founders have the "company purpose" thing backwards.

Almost all the CEO/Founders that speak of deep purpose have arrived via a strong path of revisionist history.

I'm the founder of two large tech companies and the way that it goes is that most founders have an idea that is driven by some vague desire to solve something or test something. What ends up happening is that as the idea grows you are forced to recruit people and money. As you are forced to tell the story of your company, you workshop the emotional parts to become more effective in resonating with your audience. By the time you are raising even an "A round" your story is extremely polished and emotionally moving.

I must add this is almost never done with manipulative intent or dishonesty. The mere act of becoming an orbit as the company grows demands persuasion at ever level.

The story of purpose is heightened by the success, it does not create it.

LOL. Have you seen Twitters business. Seems like it's pretty clear where the drag is.

Hah. It becomes a problem for it's users. When they are chasing quarterlies and the focus shifts from providing a good experience to making numbers, you'll feel it. Most companies DNA is pretty baked in by the time they offer publicly.

10/10 pun

This is the only important point. The question is 1% technology and 99% audience.

I'm sure you appreciate how easy selling diamonds makes avoiding taxes. Diamonds and High-End Art make it nearly impossible to not help launder.

No theyre not. Google earns 90% of it's revenue from essentially the same intent based advertising model across platforms.

There was a big change to consumerism around the second WW. I cant recommend this doc enough:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3RzGoQC4s&feature=youtu.be

Please, explain to me why your so certain these are empty statements. Im genuinely curious.

If I recall correctly, the first stage of the "moon race" was more generalized, especially to the press. Also Musk himself has a pretty strong history of not sharing much of the meat of a plan till it happens.

Is this the inspiration for "Sidd Finch?"

LA is on on point with New York as well for tech opportunity.

You do know the point of a prison is in fact not to punish. It is to rehabilitate and a sentence is supposed to be a reflection on how much rehabilitation is necessary. It's sad, prisons should have the same rights as eeryone else lest we create a caste of population unable to reintegrate and move beyond what is often a single poor decision.

You're talking about a general business cycle. Even if they owned the products say like (No Fear Clothing), the company is vulnerable to changing tastes, production problems and general operator disinterest.

You must also be bearish on; uber, Facebook, Yelp, Ebay, etc...

Network effect + brand recognition is worth a TON. It's why you're probably wearing Nikes right now and not generics.

Why? Demand is demand. It doesn't care where or what it is demanding.

Indirectly the whole messaging and social media culture is built on this simple premise. There are a ton of companies doing it, just not how you would expect it.

Note: I know it causes more lonliness

Not sure you read the article. Comcast as expected created a new tier of service to qualify that was grossly expensive. They abused the system and the intent to spur investment in infrastructure was sidestepped.