306 karma · joined July 10, 2012
Does anyone else read this and take away "[investors/VCs/other equity funds who don't group-think and blindly follow each other based on FOMO] are an important ingredient in that mission."
Look up "Om/React", might just blow your mind.
If you force people to leave (and cut off remote access) they are unable to maintain the pretenses required to cover up these losses, and can help drive exposure of foul play. At a minimum you'd need two people 100% in on the cover-up which reduces the chance of it happening.
I can't get over this. This is like a used car salesman telling you not to worry about the cost of the car, just to remember that there are free weather mats included!
I feel that there is a connection here as to "why Silicon Valley" works from the perspective of VC's in a position to influence founders. However I'm not feeling particularly eloquent today and haven't fully formed these ideas.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:T5Tk3Zb...
"Because my competition will continue to invest" is not a good reason.
You don't see Warren Buffet investing at valuations he believes are untenable, just because the market happens to be up.
It's missing the Mint-style auto-connect, but it largely does the rest of it (the actual hard math).
I'm talking about the VC/accelerator-backed startups that gain traction and mindshare, solely because of "permission" (otherwise stated "a nod") from VC's or accelerators, when other, better products may exist. The very fact that this program largely eliminates/discriminates against an entire swath of entrepreneurs who DONT want to move to Silicon Valley is closer to my point.
Why is this a thing? Not everyone wants to build their startup through venture capital, or an accelerator. This just reinforces the existing "permission-based" startup ecosystem.
I'm open to all comments & criticism... Have at it! I'm not a professional programmer (I do this on the side) so hopefully it still stacks up.
That is actually true in most (all?) provinces.