51–60 of 79 posts
This site first lets me read the article above the fold and then ambushes me with a "disable ad blocking or pay" screen. So I disable Adblocker and get the same message again. Fuck you, I'm not diabling Ghostery and letting you get to my social media information. The anti-adblocking movement is going too far.
This site first lets me read the article above the fold and then ambushes me with a "disable ad blocking or pay" screen. So I disable Adblocker and get the same message again. Fuck you, I'm not diabling Ghostery and letting you get to my social media information. The anti-adblocking movement is going too far.
This time.
This site first lets me read the article above the fold and then ambushes me with a "disable ad blocking or pay" screen. So I disable Adblocker and get the same message again. Fuck you, I'm not diabling Ghostery and letting you get to my social media information. The anti-adblocking movement is going too far.
I really wish startups would pay attention to this: “The nice thing about revenue is it’s not diluted capital”. Far too often I see people look at their valuations as something like a scorecard for success. And if you can cash out, then I suppose more power to you. But this programmer is tired of the ".com", "web 2.0", "unicorn" bubbles... I wish companies would concentrate on providing value to their customers.
I wish companies would concentrate on providing value to their customers. That's just it, though. "Customers" are just another measure of your value to the people to whom you're actually beholden: investors. As long as you're providing value (perceived or actual) to them, you're winning this game. Ideally, that involves providing value to customers, as well, but it's demonstrably not necessary.
what is being said here is maybe you should minimize the number and scope of investors.
your response is 'your' value is whatever your 'investors' think it is.
The key point in this is businesses aren't founded to gather investors, businesses are founded to make money. If you can make money more efficiently by taking on investors then you should, if you can make money more efficiently by not taking on investors then you should not.
This site first lets me read the article above the fold and then ambushes me with a "disable ad blocking or pay" screen. So I disable Adblocker and get the same message again. Fuck you, I'm not diabling Ghostery and letting you get to my social media information. The anti-adblocking movement is going too far.
I found out about this in a comment here on HN, so I'm passing on the knowledge.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I love Hacker News, but my least favourite thing about it all is how we glorify 'startups'. It's honestly just a really weird business model, that seems like it's bound to inspire things like the recent Zenefits scandal, Uber and Airbnb's disregard for regulation, etc. etc. etc. I dunno... like this story implies, it just seems totally ass-backwards to focus on growth before you're profitable, and pretty unhealthy to…
> I love Hacker News, but my least favourite thing about it all is how we glorify 'startups'. Considering who runs HN, I'd be more surprised if there were no glorification - or at least very positive attidude - of startups.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I love Hacker News, but my least favourite thing about it all is how we glorify 'startups'. It's honestly just a really weird business model, that seems like it's bound to inspire things like the recent Zenefits scandal, Uber and Airbnb's disregard for regulation, etc. etc. etc. I dunno... like this story implies, it just seems totally ass-backwards to focus on growth before you're profitable, and pretty unhealthy to…
"Hacker News... we glorify 'startups'." Do "we"? As I write this, you've got nothing but agreement below you. No angry screeds about how important startups are. We have an endless stream of mockery about unicorns. You know about the Zenefits, Uber, and Airbnb's issues precisely because you heard about them on HN; hardly the case that they've been hidden. HN may value entrepreneurs and consider startups at least a val…
... but then, I did just about double my lurker HN karma with this post so maybe you're onto something. ;)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I wish companies would concentrate on providing value to their customers. Wish for interest rates to be higher then. That the government policy that's driving this.
> Wish for interest rates to be higher then. Why? There are people on both sides of the interest-rate trade, so any change in rates creates winners and losers. Higher rates aren't inherently "better" than lower rates. Personally, I want LOW rates. I'm young and have a mortgage and car payment. I want cheap money, so that I can put it to use investing in my future. Why should I pay more to subsidize the Baby Boomer's…
In the wider economy, things are better with low interest rates on unsecured loans, government bonds, and especially business working capital (think traditional manufacturing inventory).
The only problem is loans being used for leverage in asset price speculation. We need to find some way of rationing leverage while keeping working capital cheap.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Wish for interest rates to be higher then. Why? There are people on both sides of the interest-rate trade, so any change in rates creates winners and losers. Higher rates aren't inherently "better" than lower rates. Personally, I want LOW rates. I'm young and have a mortgage and car payment. I want cheap money, so that I can put it to use investing in my future. Why should I pay more to subsidize the Baby Boomer's…
Short term, as a borrower, low rates are fantastic. But really, long term, they're the sign of a sick economy. The rate of return of investment across an economy is the interest rate. Think of it like a balance sheet - if the economy is able to expense liabilities at a really low rate, then assets are also expensed at a really low rate. Stable interest rates are great (across an economy, not individual rates - plus t…
We have low inflation and moderate unemployment. Pushing up rates will cause deflation and unemployment. If we want rates to go up we have to push up consumer price and wage inflation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Wish for interest rates to be higher then. Why? There are people on both sides of the interest-rate trade, so any change in rates creates winners and losers. Higher rates aren't inherently "better" than lower rates. Personally, I want LOW rates. I'm young and have a mortgage and car payment. I want cheap money, so that I can put it to use investing in my future. Why should I pay more to subsidize the Baby Boomer's…
Short term, as a borrower, low rates are fantastic. But really, long term, they're the sign of a sick economy. The rate of return of investment across an economy is the interest rate. Think of it like a balance sheet - if the economy is able to expense liabilities at a really low rate, then assets are also expensed at a really low rate. Stable interest rates are great (across an economy, not individual rates - plus t…
You can repeat that as often as you want, but it simply isn't true. It's post hoc, ergo propter hoc reasoning: we see low rates in times of trouble, therefore low rates caused the trouble?
>My liability is your asset
Exactly. So whatever return you aren't earning on your capital, I'm saving on my use of that capital.