anon808

9 ms·

31.
by anon808 12y ago
I think the problem is that there are a lot of practicing capitalists that also happen to be massive assholes. It's not the capitalism that's the problem, it's the asshole part.
32.
by anon808 12y ago
Exactly. A company can have a monopoly on product quality, or manufacturing efficiency, not necessarily a monopoly on a vague, conventional definition of an industry. Another example is in-n-out burger. They don't have a monopoly on h
33.
by anon808 12y ago
Capitalism simply means assets are owned by individuals and operated for profit. The implementation details depend on the individuals (and their values). Nothing about capitalism says anyone or thing needs to be exploited, cheated or mono
34.
by anon808 12y ago
see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8274762
35.
by anon808 12y ago
How many of the people need these loans for food/shelter/health?
36.
by anon808 12y ago
Just because there's a need for something, doesn't mean it should exist.
37.
by anon808 12y ago
What is the everyday benefit of this for the regular person? Humans have been drinking things for a long time without knowing the exact stats of their beverages. What is this product trying to optimize?
38.
by anon808 12y ago
Id say this is more in line with a signalvnoise than a highrise. Not quite a side business.
39.
by anon808 12y ago
unless I was one of the customers who's out a service I depended on.
40.
by anon808 12y ago
sure, if the product they made wasn't depended on by people. these kind of acquisitions seem to always leave the product customers in a lurch. and for that we don't have to congratulate them.
41.
by anon808 12y ago
serious question: is this your sole decision to make? what about investors/other owners? I respect that may be your personal opinion, but the company's opinion may not necessarily match it. just being real. btw, did you go along w
42.
by anon808 12y ago
exposure.co is an elepath product, elepath is run by Jake Lodwick who wrote http://pando.com/2013/04/02/an-acquisition-is-always-a-failu... not saying jake won't take the money and run if offered it, or
43.
by anon808 12y ago
I see that dropbox (a YC portfolio co) bought 2 other YC portfolio cos. I know it's a stretch, but does YC actively pitch smaller portfolio companies to their more successful portfolio companies? Keep the cash in the family.
44.
by anon808 13y ago
Who is this 'users' you talk about?
45.
by anon808 13y ago
It's not an argument, it's a prediction. I welcome them to prove it wrong. Unfortunately when you take money from someone else, the conversation changes to how much money you're going to make from that initial money.
46.
by anon808 13y ago
Attention?, I think you mean 'eyeballs'.
47.
by anon808 13y ago
Did Parker create the napster software. I recall Fanning wrote napster and Parker helped fund raise.
48.
by anon808 13y ago
so are you saying not having health insurance is better for people? I'll take the common sense angle that having health insurance increases the chances of medical care being applied to a health problem, versus not having any health car
49.
by anon808 13y ago
It isn't (although the US stock market(s) have rules and people that try to enforce those rules). A market is just a group of people, it's not an entity unto itself.
50.
by anon808 13y ago
This makes perfect sense, and the 'spin-out' of knowyourcompany.com now makes even more sense. I think it's a good move.
51.
by anon808 13y ago
Unfortunately looking isn't all that's going on. The advertiser can collect data about web browsing habits which I like to keep private. And some ads can actually hurt you: http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/05&
52.
Online Advertising's Shady Core: Jesse Willms, the Dark Lord of the Internet(theatlantic.com)
1 points by anon808 13y ago|1 comments
53.
by anon808 13y ago
yup, it makes sense why Claire wouldn't be part of 37s, and if the fit with her and the product is one-of-a-kind, makes sense that it would be organized separately if thats the only way to have her be a part of it. Of course now that
54.
by anon808 13y ago
Why not just keep the product in 37Signals if it's a profitable product? "not to get dragged into the day to day of each and every business or product"; 37S has a successful history of getting into the day to day of every bus
55.
by anon808 13y ago
Why are you spinning off the business if it's profitable? Why isn't Claire joining 37S instead? What's happening to ClarityBox? What other operating scenarios did you guys consider? Who is going to run the business . . . wil
56.
by anon808 13y ago
I always feel like 37signals shares just enough to make you think you're part of their community, but not enough if in fact you actually were.
57.
by anon808 13y ago
George Washington also resorted to violence, and if you're British during the late 1700s, you might even call it terrorism.
58.
by anon808 13y ago
The article is pretty specific that the data shared is raw and unfiltered, that by itself is troublesome. Of course you and I will never know exactly what kind of data or whose data is being shared, but it is very troubling that apparently
59.
by anon808 13y ago
folks tend to self-select, great indicator about what values the people running/owning the company have that made the hire.
60.
by anon808 13y ago
Men give us laws, 'God' gives us rights. History is pretty clear that what's legal is not always what's right.

More ›