anon808

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 monopolized.

see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8274762

How many of the people need these loans for food/shelter/health?

Just because there's a need for something, doesn't mean it should exist.

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?

Id say this is more in line with a signalvnoise than a highrise. Not quite a side business.

unless I was one of the customers who's out a service I depended on.

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.

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 with the sale of omgpop?

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 shut down exposure, but given that it looks like he's fairly comfortable after collegehumor and his investment in tumblr, chances are lower that he's looking to offload exposure/elepath. but who knows.

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.

Who is this 'users' you talk about?

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.

Attention?, I think you mean 'eyeballs'.

Did Parker create the napster software. I recall Fanning wrote napster and Parker helped fund raise.

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 care insurance.

there's no such thing as a monolithic 'government' being that can either work better or be enabled to act a certain way. there are people, and groups of people that do certain things. some of those things are worthless, some of those things are worthwhile. i'd argue the mess the 'rock stars' cleaned up is a generally positive activity.

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.

This makes perfect sense, and the 'spin-out' of knowyourcompany.com now makes even more sense. I think it's a good move.

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/tech/yahoo-malware-attack/

Getting served data from someone you didn't choose to send you data is never a good thing.

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 you add more color, I'm more curious. I always got the impression you were more personally associated with Know Your Company than the other 37s products (having your signature on the marketing page), if so, are you personally bummed to give up the product and not direct it's continued development? Are you going to be working on something new?

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 business and product, that's what they do exceptionally well. Why change that?

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 . . . will Claire be doing product development, programming, customer support herself? What exactly will she be doing? Is she hiring people? Who are these people?

Of course you don't owe anyone any of that info. However, if you crack the door open just a little bit, don't be offended/surprised etc. if my curiosity is piqued and I want to open it.

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.

George Washington also resorted to violence, and if you're British during the late 1700s, you might even call it terrorism.

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 the NSA CAN'T GUARANTEE that the data shared doesn't include that of American citizens (including US officials), and asks the Israeli intelligence services to respect privacy rights without anyway of enforcing that they do.

Remember, Israel is a foreign country not bound by the US Constitution.

folks tend to self-select, great indicator about what values the people running/owning the company have that made the hire.

Men give us laws, 'God' gives us rights.

History is pretty clear that what's legal is not always what's right.

Or the resume wasn't thrown out by the HR person. It was passed along to the department hiring manager, which is what actually happens 100% of the times where the resume fits the job description, and it was the department hiring manager who then threw it out.

But I can see your point, let's just assume it was the HR person that threw out the resume. And since we're in assumption land, let's assume the HR person was a woman.

You do realize that HR doesn't actually hire people (except for HR roles of course), department managers make the hiring decisions. HR is there to support the process.

Agreed. Let's just ignore this. Next article please.