davidkatz

Fair point. It wasn't my intent to make it sound easy, and I should have been more careful with my language. What I wanted to communicate is this - Entrepreneurship can be stressful, but it doesn't have to be, and the kind of business you aim for has a large impact on how stressful it is.

It isn't all glitz and glamour, and people should know that. However, my issue with the article is not the 'it's not all glitz and glamour' but the 'it's shitty, you never see your family, you're constantly stressed, and your chances suck'. That is discouraging, and totally unnecessary.

If you're going to do high risk/high gain, it's warranted and good advice. But to imply that this is what entrepreneurship is like is unfortunate.

It is perfectly fine. However, by saying that 'being an entrepreneur is shitty' Suster makes his audience believe that this is just what it's like to start a business, and you better be prepared for it or leave it altogether. That's wrong, and potentially discouraging to someone who is considering starting a business.

If Suster had written a post about the stress of VC funded startups, I'd have no beef at all.

What I'm trying to accomplish is this - pieces like 'Entrepreneurshit' perpetuate the myth that starting a business is a risky, stressful endeavour.

When I said 'be careful around VCs like Suster', I didn't actually mean anything about Suster in particular. I'm sure Suster is a great guy, and that he does his best to help entrepreneurs succeed.

You need to be careful with VCs like you need to be careful with casinos. Both enable you to take higher risks than you usually would. Sometimes you'll want high risk, and that's fine, but don't get blinded into thinking that it's the only way.

Gotcha. Next time, I'll watch my swearing more carefully.

Sorry about that. I'm not a native english speaker. To my ear, 'Shit' and 'Bitch' has about the same potential offense.

Author here. Everyone can make their own choices. My 'Bitch Please' (which was perhaps an over reaction to 'Shit') is in no way addressed to Entrepreneurs, but to Mark Suster, who paints Entrepreneurship as shitty.

About VCs - they don't push anyone, but they enable it.

Author here. I'm not a fan of swearing, but I felt that 'Shit' deserved an equally emotional response. Perhaps a mistake.

So false facts shouldn't be claimed, and that should be enough to not respond with snark. If there's another point to make, by all means, but be civil about it.

As for accepting borders - there are many reasons, but first and foremost pragmatism. Some Israeli cities in the West Bank will never be moved, and insisting on their evacuation is just an excuse to not make peace. These large inhabited areas are practically suburbs of large Israeli cities which are not in the West Bank, and wouldn't inhibit Palestinian life in any way. A land swap is the reasonable thing to do.

For comparison, up until the 40s the Israeli government (to be) accepted pretty much any proposal that would just let them get on with it and build a state (Peel Comission 1930s, UN Partition Plan 1940s). They too had endless justifications for why they should get more than they were offered, and how unjust it would be to settle for less, but ultimately they chose the future over the past.

Palestinians can cling to their version of a just solution for another hundred years and go nowhere, or accept the perfectly reasonable framework that was already put on the table by Clinton in 2000 and accepted by Israel:

* Over 95% of 1967 territory, with the rest made up for in land swaps * Full control over East Jerusalem * Billions of dollars in aid to resettle all refugees in Palestine

Many countries have defensible grievances over which pieces of territory should or should not be under their control, but still get on with their lives and live peacefully with their neighbours. Palestinians don't, and we should ask ourselves why.

Genocide? I'm sorry, but that holds no water at all and is plain insulting to the intelligence of this community. A genocide is the deliberate destruction of at least a significant part of a people. Your numbers (if they are even true, I see no sources) do not in the slightest support that.

You really do the Palestinian position no favours by claiming absurdities.

By now it's pretty established that this is just wrong. Here's two maps that Dennis Ross published in his book 'The Missing Piece' that illustrate the issue:

http://cl.ly/image/10350b3Q052P

Why should a company criticising competition be viewed as a negative thing? Content quality trumps everything else. When something smart is being said, why does it matter who said it?

I wonder how you would go about verifying an account for the Alqassam Brigades.

I agree that the tone is childish and unnecessary, but I doubt it makes much of a difference.

Large organisations are still figuring out how to use social media, but in principle publishing an operation on twitter is no different than putting our a press release or sending someone for an interview at a major TV channel.

Same goes for making videos available on YouTube, I don't see anything wrong with that. In fact, since I don't watch TV I would have never seen this video if it wasn't made available online.

This definitely has historical significance, and I find it fascinating. Thanks for sharing! Generally, I believe that more direct channels between governments and citizens will be a long term win for everyone.

Totally, reminds of the late 90s when companies were reported to move money around in circles to increase revenue. Company A pays B, B pays C, C pays A. Lots of money exchanging hands, zero profit, infinite revenue!

Careful, there's 'lying with statistics' here. A graph which looks like Romney's likes are in fast decline is actually showing a - shocker - 0.1% decrease in likes.

Thanks. I assumed that Jews would be overrepresented amongst students, but opted for making a more general point.

It's hard to look into your head and understand what exactly anti-semitism means to you. For anti-semitism to qualify as a euphemism, we'd have to establish that:

1. It actually has some substantial meaning outside of 'prejudice/discrimination against jews' 2. It is offensive beyond the offence that one might take from being accused of prejudice/discrimination against jews

As for (1), here's some dictionary definitions:

Merriam-Webste: hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group Collins: prejudice or hostility towards Jews Cambridge: the strong dislike or cruel and unfair treatment of Jewish people

I'm not clear on what sort of historial narrative you could provide that would 'load' this term with substantial additional meaning and offense, but it would have to be very convincing.

Sorry, I don't see the offense in framing a discussion around one instance of something. Don't get me wrong, if someone claims to be fighting for a general cause and then repeatedly talks about one instance, that's wrong. But I really don't see a problem with someone offering a story about one instance. At no point did the OP imply that there was no discrimination against other groups.

Claiming that the Holocaust (I'm guessing you don't like that word either) was the worst catastrophe in all of history is a different matter. Now you're dealing with a statement of fact that should at least in theory be either 'right' or 'wrong'. In practice though, I don't think it makes any sense to split hairs around wether it was the 'worst' catastrophe in human history. Who cares, it was pretty damn bad. It's hard to see why you would be offended - there's plenty of defensible views of the word 'catastrophe' that could make the holocaust the 'worst' catastrophe, and if by some other reasonable view of 'catastrophe' the holocaust only comes in at number 7, why would you view it as offensive if someone disagreed?

Same goes for your insistence on the right way to call 'prejudice against jews', where you also manage to find offense. Any mainstream dictionary will define anti semitism as something around discrimination or prejudice against Jews, which would make it's use in this discussion 100% legitimate.

Perhaps you could enlighten us - what exactly is the problem with Jews talking about ways in which they were hurt as a group in the past?

I see you mentioning 'Israel' in your terms of use, but can't select Israel in your countries interface. Can I use PayMill as an Israeli company? Thanks.

I find this unconvincing. People who are smart enough to create something of great value will often have valuable input on other things as well. My favorite example is Richard Feynman. No matter what he says, it makes me wiser.

'But Feynman only has expertise in Physics'. Well. A more accurate picture might be: Feynman is a hell of a smart guy, he chose to dedicate most of his time to Physics, but that doesn't make him any less smarter when he talks about other things.

Unnecessary bashing. The OP singled Jews out, which framed this discussion mostly around Jews. Prejudice against Jews is called anti semitism. There's really nothing to see here, nobody implied that there was no discrimination against other groups.

Principally yes, but I'd disagree on essence.

Say you have a minority that's 1% of the population, and unhindered it would also make up 1% of enrollments.

If you don't allow that minority to enroll, you're increasing the acceptance chance of a majority group member by just over 1%, while decreasing the acceptance chance of the minority member by 100%.

The correct way to describe this is then most definitely discrimination against the minority, and not affirmative action for the majority.

What exactly do you mean by the ability to 'analyse'. Could you expand on that a little?

I wish we could get the story from Xerox's side. If they understood they had something revolutionary on their hands, why did they not try to market it themselves? What resource were they missing?

Many people check out a news site a few times a day, so it's hard to tell. Either way, it's impressive.

Perhaps it's interesting to think about what the actual 'idea' here was. Did Xerox ever have the understanding that using mouse-windows computing would usher in a new era of computing? If not, perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the real idea here was Jobs', and that it was built in part with building blocks created at Xerox, which is true for most progress - it's always built on previous progress by 3rd parties.

I hear you. Perhaps not an overview then, but an example of a solved or unsolved problem?

While the argument was perhaps coming on a bit too strong, it's hard to deny the ease of deployment on cloud services. It's probably a safe bet to say that for most early stage startups the cloud is a good move.