The article's point is that for many poor people getting a shitty job that only pays enough for rent and food is pointless when you can get rent or food from your parents, or from welfare, or by thrift alone.
2 karma · joined April 27, 2011
The article's point is that for many poor people getting a shitty job that only pays enough for rent and food is pointless when you can get rent or food from your parents, or from welfare, or by thrift alone.
I bet you could go sell it for $10k
It's amazing that people who pride themselves in critical thinking and problem solving (hackers), can actually be so naive as to believe this nihilistic Ann Rand crap.
HN is starting to look more like Reddit every day.
1) No ads. I don't see any now. "But, they can add advertisements later!" No they can't. Adding advertisements to Twitter will destroy their brand and everything that makes them "cool."
2) No clear picture on their profits and revenue. Profitable companies or companies with a solid revenue model have nothing to hide. There's no reason to hide your money situation if you're successful or have a successful strategy. Twitter doesn't. Their strategy relies on selling to the VC community, not selling to users.
3) Buying up competitors before you're posting profits means twitter's only asset (users) are hard to maintain control of.
What's the point of SSL in Gmail if Google has your certs?