3 ms·

This is a very strange use of "ergodicity", which would be more suitable for an essay titled "How every possible startup idea will be tried at least once". Usin

This is a very strange use of "ergodicity", which would be more suitable for an essay titled "How every possible startup idea will be tried at least once". Using a probabilistic term to describe deterministic activity (i.e. choosing where to dig, checking the soil, giving up if no treasure is found) indicates to me that the author is reaching for some high-minded mathematical justification for his perspective. The native ad for a $375 course further erodes credibility, and his recent statement that Youtube product reviewers like MKBHD should feel compelled to protect the fortunes of a VC funded company appears quite hypocritical [1]. 1. https://twitter.com/dvassallo/status/1779928354118111278 https://twitter.com/dvassallo/status/1779928354118111278

DVassallo 2y ago
I never said or implied in any way MKBHD or other reviewers should feel compelled to protect the companies they review.
- primitivesuave 2y ago
  I went back to the Twitter thread to understand your perspective better - agree that the title could be worded differently. I think the immense amount of contention on that thread was from you making a statement on what should be the responsibility of such reviewers - i.e. that they have some responsibility to protect entrepreneurship. As much as we'd like to believe, most entrepreneurship is not in the form of AI pins and apps and gadgets, it's people starting small businesses and handling some existing facet of commerce. If MKBHD started making videos titled "The worst mom and pop store I've ever reviewed" then there might be a more compelling debate about ethical behavior by reviewers. In this case, it is a heavily funded product experiment by wealthy venture capitalists, so people are a lot less sympathetic when they hear "give them a chance, v2 will be better". Also, this is by no means a new phenomenon - here's a TechCrunch review of the iPhone from 2007 titled "We Predict the iPhone Will Bomb": https://techcrunch.com/2007/06/07/the-futurist-we-predict-the-iphone-will-bomb/ https://techcrunch.com/2007/06/07/the-futurist-we-predict-th...

DVassallo 2y ago

I never said or implied in any way MKBHD or other reviewers should feel compelled to protect the companies they review.

primitivesuave 2y ago
I went back to the Twitter thread to understand your perspective better - agree that the title could be worded differently. I think the immense amount of contention on that thread was from you making a statement on what should be the responsibility of such reviewers - i.e. that they have some responsibility to protect entrepreneurship. As much as we'd like to believe, most entrepreneurship is not in the form of AI pins and apps and gadgets, it's people starting small businesses and handling some existing facet of commerce. If MKBHD started making videos titled "The worst mom and pop store I've ever reviewed" then there might be a more compelling debate about ethical behavior by reviewers. In this case, it is a heavily funded product experiment by wealthy venture capitalists, so people are a lot less sympathetic when they hear "give them a chance, v2 will be better". Also, this is by no means a new phenomenon - here's a TechCrunch review of the iPhone from 2007 titled "We Predict the iPhone Will Bomb": https://techcrunch.com/2007/06/07/the-futurist-we-predict-the-iphone-will-bomb/ https://techcrunch.com/2007/06/07/the-futurist-we-predict-th...