enewc

Math is objective. The proof is either correct or not. Human interaction doesn't matter, except for perhaps marketing the importance of the results. In this case, the history of the problem itself has done the marketing, so any valid solution would be a wild success regardless of how socially eccentric the researcher is. Another recent example of such a mathematician is Grigori Perelman.

First of all your, viewpoint is restricted to EE/CS. Any of the other pure sciences: biology, chemistry, physics, etc. do not enjoy the same luxuries.

Another important distinction to make is that there are almost no science (i.e. research) jobs any more. Most technology jobs are just run of the mill programming, not actually investing in research.

Well, for one, more people could go into cancer research instead of pursuing useless startup ideas.

> If you do something of value to society, the world will make you rich with a smile on its face.

Said no teacher, cancer researcher, etc. ever

Another article that reads like Cosmo for entrepreneurs (e.g. 10 secret tips that will boost your productivity today!)

Skype screen sharing works fine. Apparently Quicktime does too.

Why would anyone even want this? The most important part of recording is the ability to have multiple takes, which is hindered if every take is to be uploaded at the same time. All other use cases can be covered by streaming your desktop.

The brutal truth is that most startups do not do anything remotely important or useful enough to adopt. The predominant attitude among many Silicon Valley wannabe billionaires is hoping to get acquired instead of doing anything actually ambitious. Which explains why what we see today are hordes of startups based on "products" that would be trivial features for more established companies.

What did it get right? It can be useful and it's backed by a solid brand.

Why did Persona fail to gain wide adoption? For the most obvious reason: because nobody cares. People don't want to use something new unless there's a pressing reason. Trivial conveniences don't cut it.

I doubt this will succeed. The pricing is enough to turn away most potential users and the remaining users won't generate enough income to sustain the company, especially if they meet everyone in person.

Because excess income inequality is a symptom of larger societal problems. Much of the debate over inequality serves as a proxy for other issues such as classism, government/corporate relations, civic responsibility, and the future of the economy.

Also not sure what the rationale is for not open sourcing. At the very least it gives former employees something to show around.

I disagree. If you have a flawed business model, or a product that's simply not that desirable, then execution doesn't matter. Junk ideas remain junk, regardless of how well they are marketed.

In this case, it's my opinion that the startup in question was just never a good idea to begin with. No solid business model and no good reason why it would be widely adopted.