It’s true that South Korean start-up scene is getting better from the interest of institutional funds, which got up from the apparent success of the Grouponzi-style businesses, esp. TicketMonster. But it’s a whole lot different story that the Americans return here because Seoul is a better place for start-ups. The M&A market for Internet start-ups in Seoul is almost non-existent, except few cases like TM, and TNC, the only acquisition Google made in South Korea. I don’t understand how this ecosystem would persist without deals any longer.
As a side note, the Shin in the article is a family member of the “big brother” Chaebol, Samsung Group, which has close knots with big conglomerates such as CJ Group, Joongang Ilbo, Shinsegae, and more, almost to the extent of their aggregate revenue reaching almost a half of South Korea GDP, so he earned attractive deals from big local brands so easily. Shin wan’t irrational enough not to exploit his family connections to build a business based on a totally unprofitable model, a feat only possible at the right moment and right place. Definitely, he’s a smart guy, smart enough being ready to return if he no longer sees his advantages here in Seoul, which I think would be quite unlikely though, due to his superb “Zuck status” in S. Korea.
I just created an account and found that most of profiles are obvious fake. Almost of all profiles share the same characteristic: a simple one-liner comment and an irrelevant picture of this area, which is uploaded within twelves hours. Kudos to the founder of Badoo, who focused on giving the "user experience" from fake and false profiles, which are "manually curated" to hook up the guys who lost his mind from the urgent urge uprising from his gun.
I bet this kind of service wouldn't take off in my country where lots of 18-34 are already sharing comments and photos real-time and real-location at a mind-splitting rate using their smart phones. Lots of photoshopped pictures, but at least, they're real and they talk back, definitely better "user experience."
As a side note, in my country, a television program features a college girl who boasts that she didn't have to spend a penny for expensive meals and gifts, as she has more than two hundred "SNS friends" who agreed to buy her dinners. It's indeed not an exceptional case. Definitely possible.
What's going on there, or how is that possible, a happy developer taking 1000 euro per month. Is he working at home, or doesn't he have to support his family? What is the average earning of college graduates in Portugal?
Presented in the criticism sections of your mentioned Wikipedia articles, Gödel's incompleteness theorem is there as a strong rejection to mathematics = reality argument. No mathematics is self-contained, which means it's incomplete to describe the totality of reality.
We shouldn't forget that mathematics is an invention of mortal human beings. For the dwellers in quantum space, the mathematical fundamental might be totally different from our one.
I can sympathize the side claiming that the differentiation between interpretative probability and physical probability can be a huge thing, so that "wavefunction is a real physical object" makes a lot sense. Yes, finding the inconsistency from interpretative model is great, but insisting that the alternative model is itself a physical reality is another issue.
All probabilitic objects derive its existential validity from the identity of indiscernible. We employ probabilistic tools from the belief that what we observe in quantum level are indeed identicals. However, the indiscernibility isn't equal to identity, even if the tools based on the assumption succeed in many aspects of how the supposed identities interact. We would never know each fundamental physical unit is truly identical unless we uncover the fundamental totality of quantum particles. Before we grasp the totality of the physical fundamentals, no probability is physical yet. And I think humanity would never know it. There's a limit in our knowledge and the true identity is beyond our reach.
"The wavefunction is a real physical object after all, say researchers."
Mathematics is just a representation of reality, not the reality itself.
No single law in all scientific fields can state that the law itself is the physical object, or a part of the Universe. One may assert that General Relativity can explain lots of observations we can make about this universe. However, even if the observations match the way the universe seems moving 100%, it doesn't indicate that the universe itself is GR. GR is just a successful model of reality that can assert some important relationships among macroscopic observations in this universe.
Assume that someone forged a ultimate theory that can integrate every possible physical observation we can make about this universe. Even if that's the case, he can't assert that "this universe IS the theory." It's merely the theory is a successful model of reality, but not that reality is model itself.
No one can dare to claim that a set of mathematical description of observation equals reality. No wavefunction can be a physical object. That's simply idiotic.
Flex is basically, a command-line toolkit to build SWF, while Flash is a GUI-based tool. Flex has the builder based on Eclipse and borrowed lots of conventions from the standard web technologies.
Not just raising money, but attracting smart people and getting takeover offers from APPL, AMZN, GOOG, MSFT, etc., apparently. The bubble in this market already convinced the investors that trading start-ups can work without users. The other delusional money is waiting to take their shares at x5 price anyway.
How can one implement game logic and AI in CSS?
I thought CSS can do nothing much other than styling except mouse hover property which gives some interactive elements without JS.
He's making a good point. However, he's overlooking the crystal clear fact that psytrance, a subgenre of electronic, is about transcendence almost above and beyond everything imaginable in this particular universe.
Agreed. But you can't blame traders for greed, since all the owners, investors, and companies are also driven by their own kinds of greed, some of which benefit no one else but themselves.
If facebook generates more than $100b of revenue, where would all that money come from? Google's money came from a pie of media industy, Apple's from entertainment (in a broader sense), and eBay's money from retailing. According to the rationale of its latest aggressive investors, who would become the victim of Facebook?
Loved both the book and the review. Tim is damn crazy and his lunacy, but practical one is what makes 4HB distinct from the other average books claiming nothing new, nothing to make fun of.
Let V_x be the value of a college degree x. V_x = \Sum_i{E(\pi_i) for all degree x holders, where \pi is a degree relevant portion of "premium" net cash flow from i th person's labor pertinent to degree x, discounted by the labor-demand prospect of the degree x. If we're lucky, it may be possible to compute such values of the less-than-fifty-years-old degrees.
I was a former avid mania of Firefox. I once installed hundreds of extensions and kept waiting for their updating progress whenever I launched the browser. Even when Google released Chrome, I didn't consider the possibility of switch due to the "godsendy extensibility" of Firefox. However, Firefox got slower, slower, slower and its memory leak drove me almost crazy. I reduced the number of active extensions to my essential set under ten, but it always ended up consuming more than 1GB of memory in few hours. So, I switched to Chrome and became its maniac user. I'm not that sure, why I am writing this boring story, but I settled down to Conkeror and w3m now. I don't launch Chrome. When it comes to the choice of browser, it's more about ease of customization and user-interface, not about speed anymore to me.
Estimation beats market cap when it comes to the sustainable value, which only comes from hard-earned cash, not crazy bomb-passing games you can observe in every bubble scene. I do think that FB can be traded around $50 billion and may be $500 billion (Who cares? Most of investors-speculators don't care about its paper worth on the market.) if another dot-com bubble forms. However, what would be its sustainable value? How will it generate its profit to justify its valuation? Until it's on its verified earnings statement, it's just another bomb-passing game. Who really care whether it's $5 billion, or $500 billion, if one believes he can pass his bomb to the enthusiastic guy beside him?
In addition, it makes more sense to put some ads for free utility service, but the same ads can be very annoying in the contexts of social communication.