5,914 karma · joined April 13, 2009
compassionpit, sneakpeeq, awesomenessreminders, zacharyburt.com, @zburt, san francisco, mission district, nyc, judaism, delta upsilon, university of chicago, palo alto
Look at this way though.
Let's say you share a picture of me at a concert and my dream romantic partner sees it, decides she must be with me, and tracks me down. We fall in love and get married and I never again have to think about dating, because I choose not to.
Now I have more mental resources dedicated to the tasks of providing everyone with healthy food, disseminating compassion, ...
Rationalization; party line.
(Someone as smart as Chris Dixon could pick up a new field in 3 months. It actually doesn't take that much intelligence to learn a new field. It takes some intelligence, it takes a good mentor and it takes discipline.)
you just have to be a COMPASSIONATE "asshole"
p.s. i am a naturally gifted programmer too. the two are not mutually exclusive - pun intended =)
I've learned something from Mr. Buffet.
And just what market are you referring to?
Edit: downvoted. Two possibilities spring to mind:
1) Downvoted by a feeble mind not capable of constructing an intelligent retort.
2) Downvoted by a relatively strong, yet ultimately scarce mind that wants to prevent access to the truth.
I recommend video taping yourself during skill execution and then asking an expert to review it for you. You will be amazed at how many mistakes you are making and also how easy and straightforward they are to correct once you are aware of them.
This is helpful for everything from sports to dating to programming.
And because I'm always scheming, many savvy internet marketers are allowing people to upload videos of themselves practicing niche skill X and then hiring a coach to review them. Some cool HTML5/Flex software on a CRUD database could be a big hit here.
Customers think in benefits
"men are from mars women are from venus" "apples and oranges"
I thought acquisitions were one of the last surviving relics of indentured servitude, besides universities. My guess is that it's still a better deal when you adjust for risk, likelihood of large success, and fully look at the expected value matrix. Though I'm skeptical that you can really discuss probability in the context of multiple people's talents, without historical data (the best proxy I see is that you were _chosen_ by pg or other tier 1 VC, and said VC has this historical record, etc.)