5 ms·

Key to Karma(k2k) 1-Agree with postings 2-Anecdote from real life humanizing yourself by mixing in family 3-?? 4-Profit!! I kid I kid. I enjoy your posts

Key to Karma(k2k) 1-Agree with postings 2-Anecdote from real life humanizing yourself by mixing in family 3-?? 4-Profit!! I kid I kid. I enjoy your posts but am unsure how a anti-consumer/anti-corporate/anti-advertising posting is modded up so high on a entrepreneurial board that guess what, mostly relies on advertising to generate revenue.

byrneseyeview 19y ago
"a anti-consumer/anti-corporate/anti-advertising posting" Saying "ignore manipulative ads" isn't anti-consumer. Nor is it anti-corporate -- it just means, roughly, "Buy stuff when the focus is on creating something valuable, not convincing you that something is valuable."
- Caligula 19y ago
  The quote "ignore manipulative ads" is not in his post. His post appears to demonize advertising in general. Also, how can you say "Buy stuff when the focus is on creating something valuable, not convincing you that something is valuable." The context is totally dependant on who the individual is. Who is to stay something is valuable to other people? It is the advertisements job to show to the potential customer why the product is valuable. Lastly, how does 'ignore manipulate ads' equate to 'buy stuff when the focus is on creating something valuable, not convincing you that something is valuable? That is quite the jump.
  - byrneseyeview 19y ago
    The quote is not in his post. I got the impression from "I have too much stuff," followed by "Companies that sell stuff have spent huge sums training us to think stuff is still valuable. But it would be closer to the truth to treat stuff as worthless." Is there some other meaning I could divine from those statements? "The context is totally dependant on who the individual is." That's true. There's an information component to ads -- which is why I advocated skepticism over censorship. But in general, if you have two companies that are both pursuing a value-maximizing strategy selling the same product, and one does ads, the other is going to have higher quality (have you seen ads for McDonald's? Have you seen ads for, say, Beffa's (http://www.beffas.com/home.html http://www.beffas.com/home.html)?). 'Lastly, how does 'ignore manipulate ads' equate to 'buy stuff when the focus is on creating something valuable, not convincing you that something is valuable? That is quite the jump." If you don't spend the money, you either a) destroy it, b) save it, or c) spend it on other stuff. If b), remember that saving is deferred spending, so b) and c) are the same with different timing.
    - Caligula 19y ago
      Your quoting PG's essay. I was responding to the comment that mine is under. I should not have responded as confrontation is bad on boards that could lead to meeting others in real life. Basically I found the comment that I commented on deceptive. It used anecdotes from childhood claiming X is bad, then mentions full savings as if that is the direct correlation between the two. I regret commenting in this thread and will stick to more agreeable topics.
      - nostrademons 19y ago
        "It used anecdotes from childhood claiming X is bad, then mentions full savings as if that is the direct correlation between the two." I actually believe there is a direct correlation - anecdotes (sometimes) lead to habits, and then habits lead to savings. It's much easier to form habits in childhood, which is why I picked childhood anecdotes. But it can be done late in life too - I think that was part of the point of PG's essays.
        sbraford 19y ago
        rot13: cyrnfr qb abg srrq gur gebyyf
        Caligula 19y ago
        You are doing it again. You try to make a point but suddenly mention an irrelevant point that is correct but unrelated to the argument you are trying to make. Yes that is one of PG's themes(habits can be changed) but it does not relate to believing that advertising is behavior control and holding this to be true will lead to full savings.
pg 19y ago
Startup News relies on advertising to generate revenue? We don't have either.
- Caligula 19y ago
  Apologies. I meant a large amount of YC companies.
  - palish 19y ago
    It doesn't seem like even that's correct, though.
    - portLAN 19y ago
      When they get acquired by Google or Yahoo, advertising revenue is what bought them.
      - palish 19y ago
        Correct, but I don't think most YC companies rely on that. And if most do, I'd bet it's around 55%. Loopt, Xobni, Heysan (yet), and Justin.tv all don't. And I don't think Zenter would've, either.. I can't see how text-based ads would be very useful while creating presentations.
        portLAN 19y ago
        Loopt is on a pay service; they don't need money from ads because they're not a "free" service, but check out all the web-based ones: Zenter was bought by Google, so advertising applies, as mentioned. Xobni hasn't released anything yet, but once they have something, we'll see if there are ads, and if an ad-based company acquires them. Heysan will need to make money at some point -- obviously if you don't mind operating at a loss then you don't need income from ads, but deficit operations can't last. Going public is extremely unlikely so both Xobni's and Heysan's investors presumably invested based on an expectation of acquisition, probably by a large ad-based company. Justin.tv? "There are a number of ways to advertise on Justin.tv - both within the show itself and on our webpage" (from the FAQ). Even the site you're reading now is financed with money made from advertising dollars, since Viaweb was bought by Yahoo and that sale is what's paying the bills around here (and so by extension, all YC companies are initially financed by ads, too; and doubly so when Paul Buchheit of GMail and AdSense fame is one of the investors, as with Auctomatic). The whole topic reminds me of Feynman's story about his father teaching him about how life on Earth moves because the Sun shines. Advertising revenue is the solar energy incident on Earth of the web.
deleted 19y ago
[deleted]

byrneseyeview 19y ago

"a anti-consumer/anti-corporate/anti-advertising posting" Saying "ignore manipulative ads" isn't anti-consumer. Nor is it anti-corporate -- it just means, roughly, "Buy stuff when the focus is on creating something valuable, not convincing you that something is valuable."

Caligula 19y ago
The quote "ignore manipulative ads" is not in his post. His post appears to demonize advertising in general. Also, how can you say "Buy stuff when the focus is on creating something valuable, not convincing you that something is valuable." The context is totally dependant on who the individual is. Who is to stay something is valuable to other people? It is the advertisements job to show to the potential customer why the product is valuable. Lastly, how does 'ignore manipulate ads' equate to 'buy stuff when the focus is on creating something valuable, not convincing you that something is valuable? That is quite the jump.
- byrneseyeview 19y ago
  The quote is not in his post. I got the impression from "I have too much stuff," followed by "Companies that sell stuff have spent huge sums training us to think stuff is still valuable. But it would be closer to the truth to treat stuff as worthless." Is there some other meaning I could divine from those statements? "The context is totally dependant on who the individual is." That's true. There's an information component to ads -- which is why I advocated skepticism over censorship. But in general, if you have two companies that are both pursuing a value-maximizing strategy selling the same product, and one does ads, the other is going to have higher quality (have you seen ads for McDonald's? Have you seen ads for, say, Beffa's (http://www.beffas.com/home.html http://www.beffas.com/home.html)?). 'Lastly, how does 'ignore manipulate ads' equate to 'buy stuff when the focus is on creating something valuable, not convincing you that something is valuable? That is quite the jump." If you don't spend the money, you either a) destroy it, b) save it, or c) spend it on other stuff. If b), remember that saving is deferred spending, so b) and c) are the same with different timing.
  - Caligula 19y ago
    Your quoting PG's essay. I was responding to the comment that mine is under. I should not have responded as confrontation is bad on boards that could lead to meeting others in real life. Basically I found the comment that I commented on deceptive. It used anecdotes from childhood claiming X is bad, then mentions full savings as if that is the direct correlation between the two. I regret commenting in this thread and will stick to more agreeable topics.
    - nostrademons 19y ago
      "It used anecdotes from childhood claiming X is bad, then mentions full savings as if that is the direct correlation between the two." I actually believe there is a direct correlation - anecdotes (sometimes) lead to habits, and then habits lead to savings. It's much easier to form habits in childhood, which is why I picked childhood anecdotes. But it can be done late in life too - I think that was part of the point of PG's essays.
      - sbraford 19y ago
        rot13: cyrnfr qb abg srrq gur gebyyf
      - Caligula 19y ago
        You are doing it again. You try to make a point but suddenly mention an irrelevant point that is correct but unrelated to the argument you are trying to make. Yes that is one of PG's themes(habits can be changed) but it does not relate to believing that advertising is behavior control and holding this to be true will lead to full savings.

pg 19y ago

Startup News relies on advertising to generate revenue? We don't have either.

Caligula 19y ago
Apologies. I meant a large amount of YC companies.
- palish 19y ago
  It doesn't seem like even that's correct, though.
  - portLAN 19y ago
    When they get acquired by Google or Yahoo, advertising revenue is what bought them.
    - palish 19y ago
      Correct, but I don't think most YC companies rely on that. And if most do, I'd bet it's around 55%. Loopt, Xobni, Heysan (yet), and Justin.tv all don't. And I don't think Zenter would've, either.. I can't see how text-based ads would be very useful while creating presentations.
      - portLAN 19y ago
        Loopt is on a pay service; they don't need money from ads because they're not a "free" service, but check out all the web-based ones: Zenter was bought by Google, so advertising applies, as mentioned. Xobni hasn't released anything yet, but once they have something, we'll see if there are ads, and if an ad-based company acquires them. Heysan will need to make money at some point -- obviously if you don't mind operating at a loss then you don't need income from ads, but deficit operations can't last. Going public is extremely unlikely so both Xobni's and Heysan's investors presumably invested based on an expectation of acquisition, probably by a large ad-based company. Justin.tv? "There are a number of ways to advertise on Justin.tv - both within the show itself and on our webpage" (from the FAQ). Even the site you're reading now is financed with money made from advertising dollars, since Viaweb was bought by Yahoo and that sale is what's paying the bills around here (and so by extension, all YC companies are initially financed by ads, too; and doubly so when Paul Buchheit of GMail and AdSense fame is one of the investors, as with Auctomatic). The whole topic reminds me of Feynman's story about his father teaching him about how life on Earth moves because the Sun shines. Advertising revenue is the solar energy incident on Earth of the web.

deleted 19y ago

[deleted]