Facebook has to infer intent, unlike, say Google Search, which can get it directly from your keywords. FB has built a data halo around its users to try and infer that intent. Hard to imagine them ever giving you control over that additional data they collect around you, since it's their competitive advantage. But also proving to be a double edged sword because it's creeping out their users and other actors are starting to exploit it for political ends.
The central problem here is that Stanford is saying one thing and doing another. The central question, which isn't asked in the article, is why. Stanford is creating an exclusive, private club, as is their right, but not being upfront about the rules of exclusion. More importantly, the reasons for exclusion.
This makes sense from a suburban, car-based perspective. From a walking, city-based lens, neighborhoods and social interactions make a lot of sense. It's why coffee shops haven't been made obsolete by vending machines - at least here in New York. Point is, it depends on your perspective.
“If you really want to know, it’s like a computer game, the archive. There are different levels. Most people can only get to Level 1. I can get to Level 6.”
At 29 you're starting to see beyond the ladder you've been taught to climb. Is a new degree/job/relationship going to fill the void?
When I was in your shoes, I started to ask myself that question. I decided that the source of my happiness wasn't going to come from the outside world and that led to an ongoing curiosity about where it would come from. More here: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/out-the-darkness/201503...
"This despite overwhelming evidence that even professional investors are no more likely to beat the market than monkeys throwing darts at securities listings. Money managers, at least, are paid to make investment bets. But why do amateurs believe they can outperform the professionals?"
To answer this rhetorical question with a rhetorical answer, because amateur investors consider themselves to be smarter than monkeys throwing darts at securities listings. And as an amateur, I have been better than a monkey (or an index fund). But truth be told, if I had been pro, I would've held onto to everything I bought instead of ever selling it for princely profits.
<opinion> The problem I see w/ UBI is that contrary to popular belief, people aren't lazy, they're industrious. People like to feel useful. And people long for meaning in their lives and their work. Entrepreneurs define this stuff for themselves, but most people aren't comfortable with the risk and ambiguity necessary to be an entrepreneur. We're really talking about finding ways to give structure and meaning to those folks, the large middle class in America. And the ways we did this in the 20th C aren't working, for myriad reasons, some of them technological. UBI is a way to address loss of income without actually addressing the need for structure, meaning, and belonging to a larger project. I realize this is beyond the scope of government, but I actually think we simply handed this conversation over to the free market in the 20th C and that answer isn't going to work in this century. And this question about work/income and supporting your family, which was obscured by a strong jobs market will be thrown into relief. </opinion>
Their investors will revolt. Their investors need 10X returns in the next couple years to satisfy their fund's existence to their LPs. Funds need a few big wins like Hollywood studios need a couple blockbusters every year. Dropbox's investors are counting on them being a blockbuster. Dropbox's private valuation is an order of magnitude higher than Box's public valuation. And Box has a bigger sales team, more revenue, and more inroads into big enterprise than Dropbox. So it's a real pickle and dividends aren't going to get them out of it.
Dropbox really proved out how valuable "it just works" in the cloud can be. Their first few years of execution were phenomenal and the product provided a real value. I remember discovering that I could mock up iPhone apps in photoshop on my desktop, save jpgs to dropbox and open in the app to see what the screens would look like immediately on my phone. Delightful. And then... none of their acquisitions or product initiatives stuck and they added a questionable board member. Anyone have insight in the last couple years of stumble? I'm at a loss.
As a founder who has raised both angel and institutional $$, these articles can have the same effect on me. For nearly everyone, raising money is hard, especially in the beginning. Uber had trouble closing its first money. There's a lot of luck, hard work and network involved in getting $$ in. The first money is less about idea and more about reputation and hustle.
I've loved BM since Meatballs, but I thought this was an interesting point, "lost in the funny retellings is the melancholy reality of an older, divorced dad partying with 20-somethings." It made me wonder how I'd view my own father if he was doing things like this on a regular basis. Probably not too favorably.