jusben1369

This has hit us at docs.spreedly.com Anyone have more information about this?

yes but how does that approach help drum up awareness in their startup?! this thing has viral posting written all over it. (I actually have no issue with a startup doing this if it helps them)

"Our competitive advantage is Chinese regulations blocking a social network and some domestic market filters" - One can change overnight and two can be pretty easily matched by a deep pocketed competitor who wants to enter your market. I could see these places being ghost towns in 2 or 3 years.

Great catch. I should have said "why he isn't recommending prosecution"

Quick question. Do you work for a startup now with options? Or, have you in the past? I'm trying to work out if people who object to options would ever join startups. Or, if they're appetite for risk is too small to be a potential candidate.

The thing is, these are like conspiracy theories. Any rebuttal is proof you are hiding something!

The Director of the FBI lays out very clearly what he found, why he won't prosecute, and that this was impartial. But you dismiss all that and say it's because she's an elite. I understand if you believe that - but it's apparent you have already made up your mind and that his response would just confirm one of your two conclusions. She should be prosecuted or she should be prosecuted but she won't because she's an elite.

It feels like this was the bar:

"All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here."

Interestingly, those who are strongly opposed to HRC use the term "traitor" frequently. It'll be interesting to see if the more fringe elements pick up on "indications of disloyalty to the US" as the reason why they think this should be prosecuted.

My take, and I could be wrong, was "We were looking at criminal charges via the legal system. There are other forms of (less severe) punishment like security and administrative sanctions that are often applied."

I think it's been proven that "losing an awful amount of money" does not equal "an awful business" It might - but that alone is not proof. Many businesses invest (pour more money in during an early phase than they make) and end up doing really well.

That awkward balancing act they do between "I'm gone but don't be too scared I'm still here but really I'm gone" I mean this is like a sentence tennis match:

```Although this news may feel sudden to some, this transition has been in progress since late last year and while I won’t be present day to day at Nest, I’ll remain involved in my new capacity as an advisor to Alphabet and Larry Page. This will give me the time and flexibility to pursue new opportunities to create and disrupt other industries – and to support others who want to do the same – just as we’ve done at Nest. We should all be disrupters!

I will miss this company and my Nest family (although I’ll be around to provide advice and guidance and help the team with the transition), but I am excited about what’s coming next, both for Nest and for me.```

Agree with all 3. Just think the ordering would be from 3 to 1. And not just massive data points but an actual big built in customer for your self driving vehicles.

"Beliefs and stories passed on by thousands of individuals are important factors, maybe even the main ones, in determining big shifts in the economy."

We've known this all the way back to Keynes. That's why he wanted the government to step in and pick up the slack created by individual consumers creating a self fulfilling prophecy of cutting back their own spending by 10% in preparation for a possible bad economy. Not only would the government spending help offset reduced consumer spending but the knowledge, within the broad population, that the government would do this would reduce fear of a recession and thus reduce the recession inducing behavior.

Not really a viable approach if, like the majority of travel, it's for work.

Sure (and I knew that SpaceX analogy was a risky one with this crowd!) Two thoughts. These are bigger publishers complaining. So there is a brand there and reputation meaning it's not I total crap shoot when you arrive there. And there are obnoxious ads on many sites - I think the industry carries a lot of blame for that for sure.

"Flee if pushed to pay". This uses a very narrow definition of pay. The reach into your pocket to pay cash that you earned. But there are other ways to pay - ie with something else of value to you (time/attention), your vote in an election etc. Remember that Twitter competitor that was a monthly sub with no ads? It made the above mistake - that there was only one honorable way to launch and charge for a service that brings value to millions of people.

Is his business model any different to me selling my own dish, intercepting Dishtv/satellite streams, redirecting it to my users and inserting my own ads in place of the ones already being shown?

That is certainly true.

This is a challenging line of reasoning. "I provided value to you and would like to be compensated" is a pretty basic foundation of all work and providing services. There will always be people happy to write Medium posts on the weekend but that's not the same as journalism the same way me tinkering with a drone is not SpaceX.

If the content has value you read it. If it doesn't you don't.

I think the issue is mostly how they're bricking the device. Can't they let it keep running while no longer providing any support?

Good stuff! I would say that Apple is/was a personal computer company. The form factor changed to mobile but the mission still seems largely the same.

I would strongly disagree. Tesla was never really about being a car company.

Everything about Tesla has been around helping/saving the environment by accelerating the adoption of battery driven cars vs ICE. Nothing about self driving cars says they have to be electric. In fact, if the first fully self driving car was gasoline that would probably impede Tesla's growth. So it impacts where your limited R&D, manufacturing and sales and marketing $$"s go. I don't think a company as small as Tesla can be both - at least not effectively. One will have to give to the other.

One of the things I find fascinating, and that Tesla has to grapple with at some point with real ramifications, is: are they a self driving car company that just happens to be an electric car company? Or the other way around?

I would argue that electric car companies are appealing to a much smaller subset of potential customers than are self driving cars. But the mission behind each is very different and that flows into all the key design and marketing decisions you have to make.

Tesla can easily pivot from one to the other. But Musk is so passionate about the first, and therefore so are so many of their key people, that you wonder what happens if they pivot to being first to market with the best self driving cars that just happen to be electric.

YC is still YC. Investor's come to YC to win, and win big. They want to see companies shooting for the moon, not worried about profitability 12 weeks in.

```Opposing this order is not something we take lightly. We feel we must speak up in the face of what we see as an overreach by the U.S. government. We are challenging the FBI’s demands with the deepest respect for American democracy and a love of our country```

I read into that that they are in fact fighting this? And I agree, I think it's great that Apple is forcing this discussion into the public domain. These are key issues for us all.

I think, as a society, it boils down to this: "And while the government may argue that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such control."

Can a private, for profit, company deny the will of an elected government working to solve a heinous crime based not on what they say they will do but because they cannot give a 100% guarantee that this is the only time/way it'll be used? Apple acknowledges that the government is saying it's limited to this case but because there's no guarantee (100% certainty) they feel they can deny it?

If yes, what does that mean as a broader precedent. Are we comfortable with private companies denying an elected government based not on what they agree to, but instead because there's a chance it'll be used in other ways?

As terribly flawed one might feel about government very few would think it has less accountability than a private company.

Blame the market for changing. Seriously, it's that simple. "Market now values x over y and we're doing the smart thing and adjusting our strategy....."

Yes. You can't deploy the same ad on FB and Twitter and Pinterest the way you can do a TV spot and deploy it on any channel large or small.

I think "past" is a bit of a cop out. It has to be current and in the moment to be applicable.

There are a lot of reasons why. Just one example is advertisers. The largest advertisers need to work with properties at a certain scale. TV has that. Google has that. Facebook now has that because it grew to be huge. Pinterest doesn't. Twitter doesn't and more importantly now looks like it never will. So if your service's primary revenue stream is advertising but you're unappealing to the largest advertisers it's a big problem.