nowherebeen

Not necessary. You need to talk to a lawyer. No one here can give you legal advice.

You selling immediately when they launch would have been the opposite of what they wanted to achieve. Which is lots of buyers pushing the price up.

I haven’t seen a single SPAC do well after a week though. They all drop like flies. There’s a reason why they don’t go through IPO.

Even if there is little upside reward, they might just want to decrease downside risk. It's inexpensive for them to limit data gathering. But letting data gathering fester outside their control and they are 1 PR disaster away from damaging their brand. Which is extremely valuable.

Have you considered freezing your eggs? It’s quite common for career women to do so nowadays.

That's really expensive! That means you are spending $3,000,000 for 1000 free tier users. May I ask how much does your Saas charge paying customers? I would love to know the potential revenue to justify the expense.

I am thinking of this. Do you think this is a good approach to get market validation? Or should I wait till beta to use this method?

I don’t know how many cofounders there are for most startups. Unless if I am interested, I wouldn’t even care to be honest. As long as your product helps me do something, why wouldn’t I trust you?

> Depending on where you live you likely have a legal right to the interviewer's written feedback.

That's a sure fire way to get blacklist from a company. No US company likes to deal with high maintenance candidates/ employees. The risk is too high to just move on and let it go. The best course of action is usually to come back in 6 months to a year and interview with another team.

That assumes all interviewers are a) good members and b) good interviewers.

I have encountered my fair share of bad interviewers. You don't even need to take my word, go on Blind and read all the horror stories from both the interviewer and interviewee.

I think the statement to be too generalized and doesn't address the power dynamics of the interview process. You assume they are good judges of character from a 60 minute interview.

a) As an individual, your data is only worth pennies, but as a billion users, you data is worth much more. That's because you can start inferring a lot about demographics and behavior.

b) Try starting a business and asking customers to pull out their credits cards and you will see how hard it is to make people pay. Just because you find value in paying, doesn't mean many/most people will.

What I have seen is that many interviewers are actually subjective. I've had interviews which I passed and then to be told I was rejected without explanation. I knew I failed though because 1 of the interviewers didn't like me. This interview process is really a facade to not get sued. 9/10 of the team may like you, but it only takes 1. And from my experience, its usually the ones with lower EQ that make face-value assumptions about a person they are interviewing. You have no recourse to fight for your role because of the power dynamics of the interview process. They will simply say they don't want to hire false positives.

You got Microsoft in the wrong category. Gates gave the reins to Ballmer, an MBA, which tanked the stock. Ballmer was never a founder, he was an employee with early stock. Microsoft flourished when Gates was the CEO.

> Ballmer joined Microsoft on June 11, 1980, and became Microsoft's 30th employee, the first business manager hired by Gates

> [Ballmer] left the MBA program at Stanford University

Ballmer is what Marisa Mayer was (or vice versa). An employee that latched onto a rocket. What made the company successful wasn’t them but the founder. By the time you can hire the 10th employee, risk is already greatly reduced.

Having lots of competition doesn't mean they have equal market share. It doesn't matter than there are lots of competitors if all of them are fighting for less than 1% of the market share. In fact, you don't even need to worry about them since none of them have figured out how to wrestle market share away from Google.

As for competition, you want to enter a market with competition. If there is no competition, then there must be a reason. Either a) there is no market at all, b) the market is not profitable or c) you are inventing a new market. I have seen many founders try to do c) because of your reasoning of finding something with no competition and fail.

Competition also shows you might have timing correct. If they had no competition except Google, then why would Plausible be the only ones to see the market opportunity? That's extremely unlikely and would indicate to me that Google still had a stronghold on the market.

Maybe in dollar terms, but assuming the business keeps growing: they have sustainable income, they don't need to worry about getting laid off, they don't need to play politics with leadership, and they can turn the business into passive income by hiring someone to take over.

At this stage they are a lifestyle business, its not hard to grow it even more if they get investments. If they can sell the business over $10 million, they already surpass what most corporate employees will earn in their career. That's a very attainable valuation in 2022 with a PM fit product.

As someone else mentioned on Reddit, they can't even afford food and gas with inflation right now. He is delusional and shows how tall the ivory tower he is living in. I really wished Instagram and Whatsapp were never acquired.. I would be totally off the Facebook platform.

That's not a realistic solution for many people with families.

I think cost of living in so high that many have no choice but to drink the koolaid. Software engineers in the US gets paid the highest in the world. The price for it is to become a part of the culture. It's sad, but how else will they be able to afford having a family?

The % of people looking for interesting places to stay vs those that just want lodging is probably very low. If I was a hotel, I would probably check which area has high demand and simply provide safe, secure, predictable lodging. It makes you wonder how sustainable is Airbnb’s business model at a specific location is over a 10 year period is. I predict that Airbnb’s business model will be hard to sustain over a long period. Hotels will always win in the long run.

It's food for thought. It's up to the viewers to decide whether what he saids makes logical sense and filter his political bias.

I do agree with his argument here about Facebook wanting to own the platform. I don't think that part is political as it makes business sense that Facebook would want that. And Facebook isn't exactly trying to hide their ambitions either.

I highly recommend this video I watched today about platform capitalism.

THE METAVERSE: A Guide to the Future of Capitalism

https://youtu.be/TM00M-dRMBk

They are being squeezed by Apple. They are used to be the one squeezing others, not the other way around. Even though Apple stands to gain from this, I am glad they are using their weight take on Facebook.

I came here to say the exact same thing.

So basically people with a superiority complex

Why would he/she need evidence? It's an observation which you may disagree with. Asking him/her to provide evidence is just silly. He/she is not here to prove anything to you.

In theory, the board can still hold him accountable. There are laws that protect minority shareholders. But those board members will unlikely be around the next year.

Musk is the CEO, he has the right to fire any employees that damage the company's reputation. You could argue that Musk is doing it himself and that the employee was simply stating facts, but it doesn't change the fact that the board decide to place him in-charge. Any other CEO would have done the same.

It is the board that should be holding him accountable, but they aren't. Most boards today are lame ducks to collect a paycheck. No one is challenging him because he is delivering results (although I would argue it's actually Gwynne Shotwell keeping the shipping sailing). So there's that.

If you were smart, you would have already started preparing seeing how Coinbase has been doing.

I am predicting stagflation like Japan for the next few years.

Not to mention Coinbase is only a small size player outside the US. Binance is the biggest exchange in the world. No one outside US uses Coinbase, it’s fees are ridiculous.

Yes. Not as a hater but it’s what blockchain was built for. No one cares about brand when they can use another exchange and get exactly the same outcome. It’s a double edge sword.