davemc500hats

14 ms·

91.
by davemc500hats 16y ago
unless automated, not a scalable response pattern.
92.
by davemc500hats 16y ago
hope you're not talking about me Paul. I didn't leak ron's email, and I've been consistently public about this from the beginning. the issue here isn't collusion, it's convertible notes. your post on hi-def investing captures it perfectly,
93.
by davemc500hats 16y ago
at the moment i think that's the only one, altho we've also invested in competitors: - USV in Indeed / me in Simply Hired - USV in Wesabe / me in Mint still i'm a big fan of a lot of companies in their portfolio. Fred, Brad, & Albert
94.
by davemc500hats 16y ago
i think what he's saying is it's an ok outcome if they can return capital (or slightly better)... likely for the purpose of reinvestment. however that's not a target outcome, just a tolerable one.
95.
by davemc500hats 17y ago
true, but twitter growth was notably substantial even before people understood why it was diff than FB status. not sure the popular LBS stuff is growing anywhere near as fast... but it should be.
96.
by davemc500hats 17y ago
check out http://payvment.com & http://yardsellr.com craigslist is not in any great danger, but they also aren't innovating much... and even they too face competition from social platforms eventually if they keep standing still.
97.
by davemc500hats 17y ago
Yelp may seem like it's pretty dominant, but it's still somewhat sparse even in its most popular metros like SF, NYC, LA. it's very sparse in other less-well known major metros, and smaller towns. takes time to build a comprehensive, onl
98.
by davemc500hats 17y ago
yeah, i'm probably smoking something on those predictions, but blodget seemed to enjoy the speculation ;)
99.
by davemc500hats 17y ago
i'm sure there will be room for auction-style services, but there's going to be innovation and competition there, and eBay just isn't moving very quickly these days. the other major trend is that both search and social distribution have sub
100.
by davemc500hats 17y ago
thanks for the kind words. (i think?) but really... i'm not trying to write for fame & fortune, i'm just having fun. (ok, yeah i'm pretty sure it's also somewhat effective but honestly i do it as much for personal enjoyment as for publi
101.
by davemc500hats 17y ago
if they were online businesses, maybe it would only be modestly expensive and take 3-5 years to scale... but the market is LOTS of OFFLINE and SMALL businesses, which will take for-f king-EVER to scale organically. thus, you either need to
102.
by davemc500hats 17y ago
nah, i stopped doing the coke in college.. believe me crawling on the carpet looking for crack is really no fun. regardless, i appreciate that u despise me enough to waste time commenting on my "incomprehensible drivel". i'll translate 4 u:
103.
by davemc500hats 17y ago
while the #'s are a guessing game, the observation that there's a shitload of customer acquisition cost here isn't. the main point is that lots of [mainstream] users + lots of [mostly offline] businesses are required to really make LBS serv
104.
by davemc500hats 17y ago
sorry about the lack of spelling or grammer [sic]. i'm an acquired [dis-]taste...
105.
by davemc500hats 17y ago
you may disagree whether EB-6's are higher priority than EB-3's, but it's not an irrational perspective... giving preference to people who create jobs is a reasonable point to argue. you're in your rights to have a different opinion, but it
106.
by davemc500hats 17y ago
actually, i was trying to make a joke there... wasn't taking it personally at all. (srsly, i just have a terrible bedside manner). that said, when you cast disparaging comments on the entire class of VCs not treating entrepreneurs well, it
107.
by davemc500hats 17y ago
i'm conceding about as much as you are, except i'm arguing from specific economic goals & benefits. you're arguing about "distortions" that appear to be subjective analysis. if you want to have a discussion where we have the chance to
108.
by davemc500hats 17y ago
well why not? obviously we've let you into HN comments, & you're doing the equivalent of not wearing any intellectual pants... ;) -- why are you quoting "sponsor"? why use "clique"? you're just trying to use specific questionable pu
109.
by davemc500hats 17y ago
seriously dude, do you like to argue for no particular reason? yes, it's likely not all investors will qualify -- not perfect, but it's reasonable to require some domain experience that can be provably audited. and yes, the investors who do
110.
by davemc500hats 17y ago
re: 1&2 -- yep, it hasn't passed yet... which is why we're still working on getting support & attention, and why a group of us is going to DC next month to discuss the issue with elected representatives. re: 3 -- um, "investors are
111.
by davemc500hats 17y ago
please... your arguments are circular. if the new visa class doesn't exist, these folks won't have jobs anyway. now you're claiming we should be worried their jobs might be taken away? decide which part of the argument you wish to discuss.
112.
by davemc500hats 17y ago
please point out the information that supports your conclusion above. i'm not convinced unused EB-5s contribute to solving for other backlogs. regardless, it's also not the case that all other backlogged visas are of higher priority than n
113.
by davemc500hats 17y ago
again you're missing the point of the investor participation in this equation -- it's unlikely that accredited investors and venture capitalists would risk time, capital, reputation, and criminal penalty to perpetrate such a pointless exerc
114.
by davemc500hats 17y ago
so what's your solution? lower the amount? i think you lose your side of the argument by arguing for any arbitrary amount. i'm happy to argue the merits of what the correct # is, but regardless i think we're just splitting hairs at that p
115.
by davemc500hats 17y ago
the criticism here is largely one-sided and poorly argued by a few such as yourself. if you must make it zero-sum, then i'm quite willing to face the music in the senate. so be it: have at thee, gauntlet thrown.
116.
by davemc500hats 17y ago
um, seriously... using the word "piss" is considered crass? really, you must not read my blog. i'm being incredibly civil in this discussion compared to my usual white-trash, immature, profane and loutish self.
117.
by davemc500hats 17y ago
again, i don't believe you're correct. i'm not aware that existing surplus unused EB-5 visas are used to "help" fill the backlog of EB-2 and EB-3 visas. there appears to be some surplus calculations going on between EB-1, 2, & 3 visas
118.
by davemc500hats 17y ago
sorry, no free rides... if you fail, you have to start over again. (that is: you can always start another business, pitch new investors for funding, and re-qualify for the new business. there is no restriction on multiple attempts, however
119.
by davemc500hats 17y ago
i'm pretty sure that's incorrect, as the existing EB-5 visa allocations have a specific target of 10,000 visas (which are currently not even close to being used up, only ~1,000 are used every year). if anything, prioritization is likely to
120.
by davemc500hats 17y ago
i'm saying that solving INS processing times by not introducing new visa legislation is a rather ass-backwards perspective. furthermore, the job creation / economic output benefits don't need to wait for green card processing to be solved.

More ›