5 ms·

I appreciate this sentiment but if companies want to be regarded as unicorns when things are going well, it seems fair to give them a cute'sy but ridiculous nam

by asanwal 11y ago

I appreciate this sentiment but if companies want to be regarded as unicorns when things are going well, it seems fair to give them a cute'sy but ridiculous name, unicorpse, when they're on their way down. Many startups actively seek out the unicorn label as it helps them with getting press, recruiting employees, etc. Being a unicorn is shorthand to folks that this company might be big and successful. Unicorpse is shorthand for this company is dying. That seems fair.

hitekker 11y ago
You said it perfectly. Allow me to address the larger, hurt feelings behind this post, with a reminder of the difference between a cult and a religion: > If, on appropriate occasions, the members tell, enjoy, trade, and/or devise transgressively funny jokes about their denomination, it’s a church. > If such jokes reliably meet with stifling social disapproval, it’s a cult. [1] The phrase "Cult of growth" comes to mind. While I don't know if it actually exists ( ask PG? ), I do believe that the way communities censor humor can shine a light on their insecurities. As in, the community may be actively avoiding an uncomfortable truth by stamping out the slightest whiff of satire. Not always, of course. Sometimes, the community wishes to remove "kidding in the square" or other insidious sleight-of-mind tricks from their discourse. For me, restricting the band of humor is fine if it arises from a thoughtful & honest discussion, as opposed to knee-jerk emotion. The more the latter happens, the more insecure the community perhaps (and vica versa). In any case, I'm glad to know that most people here don't seem to be flipping out over a fun neologism. [1] http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/006152.html#006152 http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/006152.html#00... (originally seen at http://www.fluff.info/blog/arch/00000127.htm http://www.fluff.info/blog/arch/00000127.htm)
- erikpukinskis 11y ago
  That's not a bad rule of thumb. People who invoke it usually miss the detail that it's the members who need to be able to tell jokes, not outsiders. People will say feminism is a cult under this rule when a feminist suggests that people without firsthand experience shouldn't joke about certain topics. The same issue comes up with racism. Activists will complain about race jokes being made by white people, with exactly the same characterization: "[black lives matter/brainwashed university liberals are] actively avoiding an uncomfortable truth by stamping out the slightest whiff of satire!" But of course they are making satirical remarks constantly within their ranks. It's satire from the outside that loses it's protection because from the outside it is just a pattern of abuse. Only from within is it the necessary ingredient for healthy discourse you describe. And of course I don't mean outside/inside to be white/black or man/woman. It's just the distinction of whether you're coming from within the movement or without. It's not hard to make jokes about feminists if you're coming from within that intellectual tradition, even if you're a man.
hsod 11y ago
> Many startups actively seek out the unicorn label Such as?
- duncanawoods 11y ago
  Possibly all of them given its arguably a rational thing to do. If you look at a list of unicorns, you will see a huge glut of them are valued at precisely 1B. People say that this is not chance that so many different businesses happen to be worth the same but that they have accepted punitive terms to stretch their valuation to 1B because the press advantages are worth the cost. This effect will also have applied to all the companies now valued above 1B because they played the same game when they were <1B and "reached" to get the label.
- asanwal 11y ago
  We maintain a real-time list of unicorns and regularly have companies reach out requesting to be added. They're interested enough that they provide paperwork to prove the valuation when we are unable to independently verify. https://www.cbinsights.com/research-unicorn-companies https://www.cbinsights.com/research-unicorn-companies

by asanwal 11y ago

hitekker 11y ago

You said it perfectly. Allow me to address the larger, hurt feelings behind this post, with a reminder of the difference between a cult and a religion: > If, on appropriate occasions, the members tell, enjoy, trade, and/or devise transgressively funny jokes about their denomination, it’s a church. > If such jokes reliably meet with stifling social disapproval, it’s a cult. [1] The phrase "Cult of growth" comes to mind. While I don't know if it actually exists ( ask PG? ), I do believe that the way communities censor humor can shine a light on their insecurities. As in, the community may be actively avoiding an uncomfortable truth by stamping out the slightest whiff of satire. Not always, of course. Sometimes, the community wishes to remove "kidding in the square" or other insidious sleight-of-mind tricks from their discourse. For me, restricting the band of humor is fine if it arises from a thoughtful & honest discussion, as opposed to knee-jerk emotion. The more the latter happens, the more insecure the community perhaps (and vica versa). In any case, I'm glad to know that most people here don't seem to be flipping out over a fun neologism. [1] http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/006152.html#006152 http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/006152.html#00... (originally seen at http://www.fluff.info/blog/arch/00000127.htm http://www.fluff.info/blog/arch/00000127.htm)

erikpukinskis 11y ago
That's not a bad rule of thumb. People who invoke it usually miss the detail that it's the members who need to be able to tell jokes, not outsiders. People will say feminism is a cult under this rule when a feminist suggests that people without firsthand experience shouldn't joke about certain topics. The same issue comes up with racism. Activists will complain about race jokes being made by white people, with exactly the same characterization: "[black lives matter/brainwashed university liberals are] actively avoiding an uncomfortable truth by stamping out the slightest whiff of satire!" But of course they are making satirical remarks constantly within their ranks. It's satire from the outside that loses it's protection because from the outside it is just a pattern of abuse. Only from within is it the necessary ingredient for healthy discourse you describe. And of course I don't mean outside/inside to be white/black or man/woman. It's just the distinction of whether you're coming from within the movement or without. It's not hard to make jokes about feminists if you're coming from within that intellectual tradition, even if you're a man.

hsod 11y ago

> Many startups actively seek out the unicorn label Such as?

duncanawoods 11y ago
Possibly all of them given its arguably a rational thing to do. If you look at a list of unicorns, you will see a huge glut of them are valued at precisely 1B. People say that this is not chance that so many different businesses happen to be worth the same but that they have accepted punitive terms to stretch their valuation to 1B because the press advantages are worth the cost. This effect will also have applied to all the companies now valued above 1B because they played the same game when they were <1B and "reached" to get the label.
asanwal 11y ago
We maintain a real-time list of unicorns and regularly have companies reach out requesting to be added. They're interested enough that they provide paperwork to prove the valuation when we are unable to independently verify. https://www.cbinsights.com/research-unicorn-companies https://www.cbinsights.com/research-unicorn-companies