4 ms·

>And I'm hardly alone here. Indeed, the whole reason Facebook is in public doghouse right now is Zuckerberg's focus on dominance and profit without regard to li

>And I'm hardly alone here. Indeed, the whole reason Facebook is in public doghouse right now is Zuckerberg's focus on dominance and profit without regard to little externalities like genocide. So you may have different goalposts for him, but that doesn't mean I've moved anything. you are moving goalposts you just don't see it. We're talking about business acumen, not scientific acument or mathematical acumen or ethics acumen. That FB is in the "public doghouse" is about as meaningful an observation as "the post office loses money every year" or "NASA can't afford to pay its engineers as much as FAANG" or "the ACLU has never successfully tried a personal injury case". The only public that matters here are the public markets and they think zuckerberg is a genius (this recent blip not withstanding). >I want to see what they can do on their own. I mean that's your definition and you're welcome to it but for the rest of the world there is M&A. >"He's so rich that he must be a genius" is pretty far from my criteria for genius. to which i leave you with a quote >Why do you think the same five guys make it to the final table of the World Series of Poker every year? What, are they the luckiest guys in Las Vegas?

wpietri 5y ago
>Why do you think the same five guys make it to the final table of the World Series of Poker every year? What, are they the luckiest guys in Las Vegas? But that's exactly my point. Zuckerberg isn't starting fresh every year. That's the sort of comparison I'd love to see. He's a guy who won very big based on some lucky choices at 19. And he's never started a fresh tournament since. In contrast, look at Steve Jobs. He's a fine example of "Once you're lucky, twice you're good." And more than twice, really. Started Apple, got pushed to the side Created the Macintosh and the LaserWriter and got booted. Helped get Pixar going. Started NeXT, which was a relative failure, but whose tech set him up nicely for an acquisition. Acquihired back at Apple and turned it into the juggernaut it is today. Say what you want about him, and I'll say plenty negative, but he clearly has skills. That's the kind of writeup I'm looking for about Zuckerberg. That all I'm getting is bluster and "but he's very rich" is its own kind of answer, I guess. > We're talking about business acumen Yes, we are. But your definition is a relatively narrow one where dominance and profit are the only measures of business success. I get why that's a popular definition here. But even here, it's not the only one. If the public markets are all that matter to you, fine, but at least try to recognize their are other criteria.
- tubby12345 5y ago
  >But that's exactly my point. Zuckerberg isn't starting fresh every year. every morningl m-f, the markets open and FB starts fresh like every other ticker. every evening FB is either up or down. enough down days and zuck would be out. the fact that FB is up and to the right for almost 10 years exactly indicates that zuck wasn't just lucky.
  - wpietri 5y ago
    Oh, starting with fifty billion in cash, a trillion-dollar valuation, and a monopoly on a key segment of a newly important industry is starting fresh, is it? You aren't even trying to understand my point here, and you have reduced yours to absurdity, so I'm done.

wpietri 5y ago

>Why do you think the same five guys make it to the final table of the World Series of Poker every year? What, are they the luckiest guys in Las Vegas? But that's exactly my point. Zuckerberg isn't starting fresh every year. That's the sort of comparison I'd love to see. He's a guy who won very big based on some lucky choices at 19. And he's never started a fresh tournament since. In contrast, look at Steve Jobs. He's a fine example of "Once you're lucky, twice you're good." And more than twice, really. Started Apple, got pushed to the side Created the Macintosh and the LaserWriter and got booted. Helped get Pixar going. Started NeXT, which was a relative failure, but whose tech set him up nicely for an acquisition. Acquihired back at Apple and turned it into the juggernaut it is today. Say what you want about him, and I'll say plenty negative, but he clearly has skills. That's the kind of writeup I'm looking for about Zuckerberg. That all I'm getting is bluster and "but he's very rich" is its own kind of answer, I guess. > We're talking about business acumen Yes, we are. But your definition is a relatively narrow one where dominance and profit are the only measures of business success. I get why that's a popular definition here. But even here, it's not the only one. If the public markets are all that matter to you, fine, but at least try to recognize their are other criteria.

tubby12345 5y ago
>But that's exactly my point. Zuckerberg isn't starting fresh every year. every morningl m-f, the markets open and FB starts fresh like every other ticker. every evening FB is either up or down. enough down days and zuck would be out. the fact that FB is up and to the right for almost 10 years exactly indicates that zuck wasn't just lucky.
- wpietri 5y ago
  Oh, starting with fifty billion in cash, a trillion-dollar valuation, and a monopoly on a key segment of a newly important industry is starting fresh, is it? You aren't even trying to understand my point here, and you have reduced yours to absurdity, so I'm done.