boomshucka

Agreed, you are smart. Many people won't agree, but if you can even just have your own daughter think that way, you've probably done all that really matters.

Well, in Sam's case, he has a tendency to talk about many things which he has no expertise. I'd guess he and his friends sit around talking about things which they don't really understand and think they have "insight". So do my friends and I. This is fine to the extent one is chatting with friends. It's the silicon valley thing to do, think we know waaaay more than we do.

However I don't think it's a great idea to put forth one's amateurish "insight" as discussion worthy in a public forum. It promotes the idea that any position is "valid" when many simply aren't. Having a "discussion", which everyone seems to think is oh so important, is absolutely useless if it's between people who don't have any clue about the topic they are discussing. So, if the "internet lynchmob" has stopped people speaking publicly about things which they have no business doing, I can't say I feel sad about it.

The statement "you are clueless" in response to "you are thinking too narrowly" is hardly the "height of incivility", especially when the comment of thinking narrowly was off base by a long way. The word "civil" is hardly well defined in the first place.

You are wrong, didn't take into account the context, pulled the trigger too quickly, and now won't back off of it. This is the worst type of moderation.

Let me guess. Gold is the place to be. Owning small stakes in a diversified set of large successful companies, bought at different prices over time can't possibly be a good idea right?

Nobel prize winning academic research is awful in the finance space. It's based on flawed assumptions and it's results are completely useless. Either a) the person claiming this is aware and effectively lying, or b) don't know this and aren't competent.

There is nothing in this link about personal attacks. "Be civil" is as close as it gets. "you're thinking too narrowly" is only slightly less civil than "You are literally clueless", which is something people say, face to face (see the bit after being civil?), frequently.

Look outside the US. The US is not anywhere near as distorted as several asian countries and even mexico has a more extreme situation. Asia suggests it's not even close to it's zenith

That's not even close to what it's saying. It's saying people in places like SF don't want others coming in/and or want to maximize their home value, so they stop new housing being built, which keeps supply of housing down and thus less people can live in areas where there are lots of work opportunities.

If one doesn't immediately understand what this means, they should stay away. The intended audience is clearly people who have some grounding in networking.

Really, any user that doesn't "get" these answers shouldn't be anywhere near this.

There is a thesis that FPGAs will take share from ASICs as upfront costs for producing ASICs continues to climb, seemingly in an exponential manner as feature size falls. Some Altera investors think the company is worth significantly more than $54 per share, given the market could become significantly bigger and the competitive dynamic is pretty nice for the two big players.

It depends how good he is... At a top company, a top "coding" engineer can make a lot of money. But, many people who are not even close to "top" think they are in fact, "top".

Well, they are already several weeks into another quarter, and perhaps they are seeing a down trend.

It is too easy to assume this didn't work because of these mistakes. I'd guess it didn't work because it's a stupid idea in the first place. So, it's hard to really see if these are "lessons" or just noise.

This might sound clever to you. But you are selling a product that people want to go in and buy from HD and walk out and have it just work. Nobody who walks into HD cares that you are a startup.

For what it's worth, the product does look good, and sounds good too.

No doubt.

But your real customers aren't going to care even a little bit.

The vast majority of apple users have never heard of Jonathan Ive.

Edit: No, you aren't doing something right because I've picked up on it. Every time I see it I think to myself "It's stupid that these guys keep doing this, I wonder what other mistakes they are making".

No, it doesn't. The vast majority of gardeners have never heard of Yves Behar. It's a crutch for having a product anybody cares about.

Other than that, there is a difference between "mentioning" it and working with him, and having it in the title of everything.

Does anyone actually care that it's designed by Yves Behar? Every time this stupid company promotes themselves, they mention Yves Behar. Did you ever see apple say "Designed by Steve Jobs"? Or, "Designed by Jonny Ive" ? No. Stop.

I don't think that is the intention of the bet, no.

Wow, way to contradict yourself. You say it's indistinguishable and distinguish in the next sentence? A bubble is distinguishable this way: if the value of the asset comes only from selling it to someone else, it's a bubble. If the asset provides value without selling it, it isn't a bubble. Pretty simple right?

To the extent they go public, sure, those numbers are more reasonable.

The determination of "valuation" is pretty obnoxious. These preferred securities with liquidation preferences aren't even close to a "common equity" valuation. A VC round at $x valuation isn't remotely similar, economically, to a public co at $x valuation. This bet is more about whether the late stage VC bubble continues for 5 years than any notion of real value.

There are network effects in both of those. It's not the same.

To be clear, the intention was to point out this (generally bad practice) is practiced in many fields. The intention wasn't to suggest it's ok/good.

A significant amount of everything is done by superstition.