stanleydrew

You're mad that an interface shows a warning when the data isn't known to be accurate? What do you propose would be better?

I hope there aren't too many people who define "doing well" that way. Seems like it would lead to a total breakdown of the social fabric.

I don't really understand the point you're making. Why do small taxi companies have any more right to exist than Uber/Lyft? Or what exactly are they better at than Uber/Lyft that would justify keeping them around?

Any driver who was formerly driving for a small taxi company could simply drive for Uber/Lyft. So what is the benefit of having management be local vs centralized?

Yes.

I think it's less about tech-savvy and more about deciding to go larger-scale and adopt all the problems that come with that. Handling order fulfillment and customer service isn't something most farmers probably want to do.

Bessemer & Co. likely know that Otonomo is building a drop-in replacement copy of Smartcar's API. I'm not sure there's anything terribly controversial about that, although reasonable people may disagree.

Bessemer & Co. probably don't know that the docs are literally being copied though.

Talk to TinySeed. Might be a good fit.

I'm not really sure there's a "solution" here.

Any time barriers to entry are lowered far enough that a market participant doesn't have enough to lose by behaving badly we'll see problems like this.

What's your proposed alternative? That generic category names should be disallowed within a TLD? Or that some public or community-driven version of a for-profit service should control the generic names?

I almost fully agree. The tricky part is getting access to the lottery tickets you want though.

For most people, the only way to buy equity (lottery tickets) in a private company is to work at one and negotiate for equity compensation.

Tokens are somewhat different I suppose if they are actually listed and tradable right away. That solves the access problem.

But besides access there are also often price discounts granted to employees for both tokens and equity forms of lottery tickets.

So I guess I would say it's not always the right thing to optimize for, but in general working at a company you really believe in can get you access to some very rare lottery tickets.

I would humbly suggest that you might not understand equity. Equity is a right to future cashflow that the company will generate (aka dividends), as well as a claim on company assets after all debts are paid off.

If the company builds valuable assets or generates a lot of cash, then equity is valuable. The company might be able to "get bought out or go public" as a result, but if not you still have a claim on future cashflow and company assets. Most companies don't go public but many of those do pay dividends to equity holders.

Anyway my only real advice is to find out how the founders are compensating themselves. That will tell you a lot about where they think value creation and capture will accrue in the long run.

Seems you realized this already, but RSUs are only sellable right away if there's a buyer right away. For publicly traded equities this is almost always the case. But plenty of private companies issue RSUs as well. I have some in a few companies currently for which there is no market.

The developer has control over the pricing model though right? For an app that solves a specific problem one time and then is useless, it would be foolish for a developer to offer a free trial. As far as I know Apple does not force free trials.

> in any case company valuation is not based on aspirations

It kind of is though. Valuation is based on future discounted cash flow. Aspirations inform how much future cash flow a company can generate.

Decentralization matters to a few enthusiasts. Those enthusiasts include the developers of the technology. So the point of these technologies is decentralization, but the "users" of the technologies don't actually care and are hoping to speculate their way to lambo riches. (I put "users" in quotes since there are actually very few true "users", and I'm really just describing people who trade cryptos on exchanges.)

Is there something interesting about this list other than its entertainment value?

Comments have to be submitted it looks like, so this isn't even Reddit providing the actual list.

I wouldn't say I'm an experienced CEO but I'd be interested in sitting down to review your feedback over coffee or beer or whatever. My email is in my profile.

The idea that showing a warning makes it immediately obvious what is going on is ridiculous.

It would take a large-scale public education campaign to teach people what it means when they see a warning message that reads "Peer key changed. Are you sure you want to proceed?"

If you need to be convinced, go ask your mom or dad whether it's immediately obvious what is going on when they see an insecure connection warning in their web browser. In my experience everyone just clicks through to "proceed anyway" without comprehending it at all.

1) We can debate the frequency of this all we want (though I don't think it's useful). In my opinion the top (note this is an important qualifier) journalists are not lazy on purpose and in general are trying to deliver accurate information. You may disagree and that's fine. Also technology reporting is particularly difficult when you yourself are not a technologist, but that's a separate issue.

2) I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. I didn't say that news isn't about finding the truth. But when describing complex systems and situations there is always going to be judgement applied in the distillation process. So for instance, you could say "Facebook provided private message data to some application partners" or you could say "Facebook's users inadvertently agreed to share private message data with application partners." Both are true.

These are the right questions. It is disappointing that our top journalists sometimes prefer to fit a story into an existing narrative but narratives capture the public's attention so the incentives get a little weird.

Anyway I do sometimes think that it might be good to have an actual screen recording of everything I do online, just so that I could look back and see what a permission dialog looked like for instance.

Maybe I will build a Chrome extension for myself.

This is a good idea, but wouldn't that essentially ensure that you churn out your best customers eventually? They get so good at cooking that they don't need your perfectly portioned and pre-prepped but overpriced meal kits.

> Thieves don’t deserve to die, but it’s okay that it’s a risk they run.

Why is that okay?

It comes down to proportionality.

I don't think anyone would disagree that generally stealing is wrong and people who do it in general deserve to face consequences. But the consequences should be proportionate to the crime. I don't think anyone deserves to die for petty theft, regardless of circumstances.

It seems like you are suggesting that if someone takes a $50 package off of my front porch, and then I come outside to confront them, and in the altercation this person makes a threatening gesture towards me then I would be within my rights to use lethal force.

That seems like a disproportionate escalation to me.

Anyway I think we just disagree about some of these proportionality issues.

If someone steals something, that doesn't mean they automatically lose all of their rights to life and property simply because in your mind they are now a "criminal".

I really shouldn't engage with this, but if you are suggesting that we will eventually have a "decentralized" version of Facebook that's built on something like Ethereum's smart contracts then I think you are placing too much weight on the probability that people care about decentralization.

If your defense against theft ends up killing the thief do you think you shouldn't be liable?

The point is that at some point an "innocent" citizen crosses a line and is no longer innocent. We are just debating where the line should be.

Serious question: what is it that you think has prevented practical use and why will that not continue to hinder future practical use?

Yes but I am really interested in my actual question, which is how we can tell whether any given behavior that exhibits desire for lower price is done willingly, knowing that there is a safety tradeoff.

I am absolutely not saying it doesn't happen. I am asking how can we tell?

Only a handful of people will actually bother to check whether they were affected.

Setting aside the barriers to getting a lawyer when you have no money which I think you dismiss too readily, I am more interested in how you would propose to determine whether consumers are willingly sacrificing safety for cost?

Regarding #3, maybe something like Vancouver's vacancy tax: https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/empty-homes-t...