bovitclan

I didn't assume ignorance, I observed it. I didn't mean to imply you were ashamed of being ignorant, what I meant is that it isn't an insult to tell someone that a moment is teachable, as we all have much to learn. I do apologize for framing my points in a way that was liable to be misinterpreted, and for not reading your argument closely enough. However, I'm not the only one missing something.

Best of luck, stranger.

This was bothering me, so I consulted with a friend, and tl;dr, I didn't pay your arguments the attention they deserved (as you are aware), and I shouldn't have mentioned a "teachable moment" because, while the phrase didn't have this connotation for me, I could have easily foreseen that you would've interpreted that as me putting you a rung below where I am.

I stand by views and the substance of what I've said, but I can see that the way I interacted with you was counterproductive to the conversation. I apologize.

You're free to ignore me, but I'll engage just once more.

I read your comments and perceived that you were misunderstanding, and that I could present it in a way that would clarify things. I'm sorry that you felt patronized, but there is no shame in ignorance. I think you should be more open to people telling you that they have something to teach you; maybe I was wrong, and maybe this isn't the case for everyone, but when I try to teach someone something it's because I respect them enough to think it's worth the effort.

You see all of our points, but you keep coming back to this idea of buying your way into school, which is not a point anyone is arguing. Why is that?

Happy trails.

Edit: And yes, I do believe that, regardless of how difficult it was to get into school, people work very hard in school. I never said they didn't, though I can see how it would be easy to come away with that impression. What I am saying is that it doesn't show them to be harder working than someone who did not attend school.

The claim is not that colleges provide no value, but that going to college is not a reliable indicator of anything but privilege. Using it as an indicator of intelligence or work ethic, especially as being more intelligent and hard working than someone who got their degree from University of Phoenix, doesn't work. It's just buying into the narrative that rich people must be rich because they're smart.

I really hope that you see this, because this seems like a teachable moment.

We aren't talking about making a million dollar donation to get your son into school. That happens, sure, but it's an extreme example.

Here are things that richer people can do easily & poorer people struggle with.

* Not working or working part time for four or more years

* Moving across the country

* Living in places with high cost of living (think Stanford, Berkely, NYU)

* Getting tutoring for the SAT, taking the SAT multiple times

* Going to a high school where the teachers give a shit

* Having people in your life who went to college & can help you apply

* Having extracurricular activities that show you'd contribute to campus life

* Already being comfortable with being interviewed at age 18

These are just what I could think of in a few minutes. Scholarships _do not_ level the playing field (though they certainly help).

> A lot of the value of Harvard or Stanford is that they only pick the top n% of the country.

The difference between the people who go to Harvard and those that don't has much more to do with money. Hire people with this assumption at your own peril.

I'd love to hear more about this.

> Why should he tell you what you should change to get approved? You already said that you had new ideas about how to differentiate your service against Upscribe - why not list these out into a roadmap?

The roadmap suggestion seems like a good idea, but Embedly should tell OP what they'd like to see different because they're the ones who, contrary to previous communications, suddenly have a problem with it, and they should have more respect for the time OP has put into their work. They dismiss it and say they "won't argue" when OP wasn't being remotely argumentative. They say "please submit when you are out of MVP stage" -- what does that even mean, please come back to sell your product, which is tailored to our platform, after you've left the stage that requires making sales?

> At the moment, you're claiming that 'novelty' is the choice of consumers to choose a different product. That's not novelty, that's competition.

They do not make this claim. I think if you read it again carefully, you'll see that they don't.

> ...if you truly believed in what you were doing, then you would put this time in upfront on the product on the speculation that it would be so good, they could not turn you down.

A.) Should every product and company be a grand vision that you "really believe in?" What's wrong with making something that you think is useful and that people will buy and that you'd enjoy building, but which is certainly not going to change the world? What if you can't build your grand vision right now because you lack the skills, funding, and experience -- tough luck, you don't get to try and fail to launch a lemonade stand, you have to mangle an idea you actually care about instead?

B.) Of course they could still turn him down. That is the point. OP wasn't willing to gamble more than an MVP on the whims and wishes of this company.

And clearly, OP had good reason to be conservative.

I don't mean to be a downer, but you could certainly cause an accident by calling out an observation which was faulty. I agree with the sentiment that you should speak up when you see something amiss, but let's not kid ourselves that, like every decision, it comes with inherent risk.

Robert David Steele has interesting things to say about OSINT, but one must take him with an entire cow lick of salt. After getting interested in his ideas and watching several interviews with him, I was very disappointed. His personal narrative is exaggerated; he advocates conspiracy theories that are popular but ridiculous; he shows a certain arrogance. He looks & quacks like an aggressive self promoter without much substance to offer.

This man has claimed to be the father of OSINT one day, and said that Pizzagate was spot-on the next. No one with a clue about how to conduct an investigation should have swallowed that.

That is all to say, I believe we are in very troubled times, but I don't believe we are on the verge of revolution.