gist

> I see nothing wrong at all with asking people for feedback on an essay that will be broadly published and read.

Is he really 'broadly published and read'? Most people outside of tech have no clue (and no interest) in what PG says.

Yes there is 'nothing wrong' except if you put yourself out there as having good unique thoughts why does it not show that you are lacking confidence to have others (again in this situation maybe in another I'd agree) always review what you are posting on your personal site or blog?

And very importantly he doesn't allow comments (on his blog) the only comments are on HN which he doesn't link to. It's unknown if he even reads the HN comments anymore. Or (last interaction over a year ago) comment on HN anymore (to defend his thoughts or position).

Many reasons for this of course but if you can't handle criticism and think so little of what people on HN says why are you publishing at all? That's your biggest audience isn't it?

(Side note YES HN is can be a brutal crowd for sure. Would be interesting if he ever publishes the changes he makes in the essays or what the people reviewing the essay have to say).

Writing wise I have a great deal of respect for you (and other top commenters) because you don't have people edit and review what you say you just write it (and take lumps or accolaydes).

Something I've mentioned before is I can't get over the fact that Paul has mulitiple people review his essays prior to publishing (which others have defended when I've made the same comment before).

I (as most people do) write clients every day with proposals or results or reports. Nobody reviews my writing first and the end recipients they either like what I say and pay me money and refer others to me or they don't. I certainly don't have the time to perseverate over the perfect phrase or paragraph '50 or 100 times' but yet I get results more often than I don't.

> The problem with successful tech figures is that, over time, they often become convinced they can succeed at anything.

I think at the core the problem (if you want to call it that) can be boiled down to the following:

"I am smart. That's why I was successful at what I did. So I need to prove to myself and others that it wasn't luck it was I am damn smart"

The problem with hubris is that if you took someone like Musk or PG and you kept them in some off the beaten path place ie not Silicon Valley, not NYC pick your hot location (and stipulate they couldn't move because of family or other obligations) and they weren't surrounded by others who were top notch (as a result of also being in the right place at the right time) there wouldn't be anything particularly notable about them.

Having gone myself to one of those 'good' universities I will say that Paul being at Harvard would certainly amplify this type of behavior by being surrounded early on at a formidable age by accomplished members of that community.

Exactly. Also noting what happened with Ron Johnson (Apple Stores) after he left Apple (and was not surrounded by either Jobs or others that worked at Apple:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Johnson_(businessman)

I am wondering to what extent 'key man' insurance is needed. That's a big purchase to be riding on one man essentially (yes they are getting engineers and others but Jony seems to be the big ticket item for the purchase).

> If people knew which business were PE owned they would avoid them.

What? You think the average customer knows or cares about that?

Open source wiki we have used forever with great success:

https://twiki.org/

https://twiki.org/cgi-bin/view/TWiki/WhatIsTWiki

I don't think it should be referred to as a 'necessary evil' (by the following definition of that term):

             "something unpleasant that must be accepted in order to achieve a particular result"

For one thing the term 'advertising' is broad same as many words (ie 'Doctor' or 'Computer guy' or 'Educator'). Second it's not unpleasant although like with anything some of it could be. (Some of it is funny and entertaining).

> Advertising has consequences

Everything has consequences. That is actually a problem with many laws and rules which look only at upside and not downside.

Unfortunately and for many reasons you can't get rid of 'advertising' the only thing you can do is potentially and possibly restrict certain types of advertising and statements.

As an example Cigarette advertising was banned in 1971 on FCC regulated airwaves:

https://truthinitiative.org/research-resources/tobacco-indus...

This is similar concept to taking your kids to a fancy resort to swim in the pool where they would be just as happy at the local Holiday Inn in your town.

> I had no idea Monster sold anything other than over priced guitar cables..

Overpriced because you are envious of their marketing or pricing strategy? They were appropriately priced as long as the marketing wasn't more deceptive than products are generally (and noting it's not a food product or medical claim).

> But it wasn't because of their alleged improved sound quality or whatever, it was because they had a lifetime warranty.

Isn't that (along with branding) a valid reason to price a product at a certain level?

> when they don't make use of the patent themselves, except to extract money from other people, typically through threats of legal action.

If someone has (what you have called) 'a legitimate patent' then they have the right (whether they use the patent or not) to then pursue legal action to either stop use of the patent or to settle for money damages.

What companies don't like is someone coming along with the ability to engage legal help that they wouldn't be able to do with out the attorneys that are handling this (to gain a payoff for themselves which well attorneys do for other things).

However while this seems different than similar things that happen (with actual companies with legal resources) it's really just the same thing just by different parties.

If let's say General Electric has a patent on something and you use that patent GE can come after you (and probably will). Same as with large companies defending their IP (trademarks).

> We ended up fighting it a bit because of "principles" by our founder. - in discovery there was something like 1,000 of these exact demand letters they had sent.

I am noting you have not said how this ended up. What does 'we ended up fighting it a bit because of "principles" of our founder.

I think like so many things the idea of 'patent trolls' has taken on a meaning whereby anyone who has a patent but no operating actual company (as you are describing LLC with 5 members and a lawyer) everyone automatically thinks 'sham'.

On the surface by stories related that certainly appears to be the case.

However we don't have any data (only anecdotes) on how many patents are pursued this way that are actually valid. And 'back in the old days' it used to be that you could have an actual patent and then get shafted by some large corporation simply because they could afford lawyers and you couldn't (meaning 'mr small inventor')

What I am saying in no way means I don't think there is probably abuse (there are enough anecdotes to think 'something is wrong here') but really we need the entire picture and dataset to decide that (in all fairness).

> Today’s entrepreneurs would do well to note that Microsoft made minimal use of venture capital. Microsoft’s only VC only owned 6.2 percent of the company. Gates didn’t trust them.

> If you’re thinking of trying your hand at being the next Bill Gates, keep that in mind.

Keep what in mind? Sure so try to build a company now w/o VC money and potentially complete with others who have taken that money? Microsoft obviously had an advantage of a completely new industry AND literaly very little VC money (and in vastly tighter amounts) funding competitors.

At the core this behavior is simply a version of social proof. Parents see what other parents do and/or kids see friends being picked up and then put pressure on their parents to do the same. Then it gets to a tipping point where it just becomes the thing that you do (and nobody thinks otherwise or wants to tell their kids they won't do this or questions it).

It's also a way for a parent to think somehow they are doing the right thing and get a little enjoyment in their head (despite the time involved or wasted) 'I am a good parent'. Doesn't involve as much effort as other things a parent does (or should do) it's simple (other than the time).

> after finding a new employer.

Obvious question then does the employer and the job have to be similar to the job that they had (and how similar and what is the test)?

This is the OP: https://www.vetmed.auburn.edu/faculty/erik-hofmeister/

Probably correct for OP to present as "Tim Apple" (hence giving some kind of hint to reflect on)

Also what happens to a user whose hard drive is seized (and forensic tools are used) to find deleted files? Hard to believe (and why would they) take time to properly sanitize the drives.

Guess what? Trump will (hopefully) come to the rescue here. Don't laugh at that. I'd imagine he will be helpful possibly even with some of the EU rules such as in particular the one which makes even small US companies liable (as I recal) for notifying users of cookies on a website.

So generally I agree with this. But I will note the following:

1) Vanguard offers Gold ETFs. Now they would say something ike 'oh that's because gold is used as an actual product ie has a purpose'. But most people accept that gold is also speculative and is the way it is simply because it's been that way for such a long time vs. it's inherent value or purpose. Yes the swings are not as wild and not as easily manipulated (there was the situation with Silver that was years ago) but still it could be done.

2) Stock investing is by and large gambling and whatever income the stock owns in no way really flows measuably to the person who owns stock in the company but seems to drive some type of accepted value going forward. No it's not entirely chance (like traditional gambling) but there are many players and much skill level and 'the regular guy' is not in a position to compete so they must interpret signals and they don't have access to all the signals that a higher level investor does.

3) The entire 'long term' for stock is similar mantra to HODL with crypto.

4) The 'problem' with both crypto and stocks is not really when to buy but when to sell.

Unclear to me why this info can't be (at this point it's the 20th AMA by Peter Roberts) in a faq format.

Sure it's helpful. But it seems on the surface to be lead generation for an attorney and

I'm sure there are tons of other professionals (legal or otherwise) that would like the same free advertising.

> Curiously, the fact that the founders of Twitter have been slow to monetize it may in the long run prove to be an advantage.

This is the way in part things were done 'back then' (and for sure even now). As people might recall search engines like excite.com (long long gone as a practical search engine) made statements that you'd never be able to pay for search rank (and google didn't monetize at first either). Noting that monetizing requires also people to set that up, sell, market and manage it.

And in particular engagement bait, when you're blogging or writing, requires you to not be circumspect but rather be polarized and absolute in what you say.

This is business it's not a friendly game of (whatever).

Anything that someone else does that you don't understand or can't do always sounds super important, impressive, and enviable. Usually. But you have to realize that he spends his life doing and thinking about this. And will stipulate he's gifted in this area. I've never heard of him but managed to download his CV.

I will also note that sometimes when I read HN links and think one thing then read the comments and people know enough to take issue with what is being said and even call it out.

An example of this is something I learned from a former employee who went to work for Encyclopedia Brittanica 'back in the day'. I actually invited the former employee to come back to our office so I could understand and learn from exactly what he had been taught (noting of course this was back before the internet obviously where info like that was not as available...)

So they charge (as I recall from what he told me I could be off) something like $450 for shipping the books (don't recall the actual amount but it seemed high at the time).

So the salesman is taught to start off the sales pitch with a set of encylopedia's costing at the time let's say $40,000 some 'gold plated version'.

The potential buyer laughs and then salesman then says 'plus $450 for shipping!!!'.

They then move on to the more reasonable versions costing let's say $1000 or whatever.

As a result of the first example of high priced the customer (in addition to the positioning you are talking about) the customer is setup to accept the shipping charge (which was relatively high).

> any country looking to arrest either man should tread carefully.

I'd imagine that if they were detained the IDF would put out quite a bit of effort to get them sprung from prison ... at any cost.

(Imagine if a former US leader was put in prison anywhere but the US).

Are you serious? You think they don't care about this except if the stock 'takes a bit hit'??

I had buffering issues but then backed off and let a bit of it buffer up (maybe 1 or 2 mintues?) and then it was fine for the entire Tyson Paul match. There was no reason I needed it to be live vs. a 1 or 2 minute delay.