Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A man who destroyed his multimillion dollar company in 10 seconds (2018)

thehustle.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 499 posts

Re: A man who destroyed his multimillion dollar company in 10 seconds (2018)

#371

Post by skinnymuch »

knicholes wrote: post #71
gunshai wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're more curious about this story. I highly recommend slate's slow burn on the Clinton Scandal. https://slate.com/slow-burn Impeccable journalism and incredible interviews are given.

I'm sorry to be pedantic, but I'm confused by what seemed to be a recommendation to read this link because it's going to be awesome, but then you say "incredible interviews." I'd feel a lot better if you clarified, before I read, "incredible" as in "extraordinary" or "difficult to believe."

Haha this wins pedantic cake of the month. Of course you know and everyone knows what they meant by incredible. Like how 99%+ people use the word.

Re: A man who destroyed his multimillion dollar company in 10 seconds (2018)

#373

Post by eitland »

skinnymuch wrote: post #368
EGreg wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably similar to what Mark Zuckerberg called people who trusted him with their data :) https://www.businessinsider.com/embarrassing-and-damaging-zu... ZUCK: yea so if you ever need info about anyone at harvard ZUCK: just ask ZUCK: i have over 4000 emails, pictures, addresses, sns FRIEND: what!? how'd you manage that one? ZUCK: people just submitted it ZUCK: i don't know why ZUCK: they "trust me" ZUCK: dumb fucks

I doubt almost anyone on HN is squeaky clean with what they said and wrote as a teenager.

Correct.

Problem is in this particular case it seems highly relevant today as well.

Re: A man who destroyed his multimillion dollar company in 10 seconds (2018)

#374

Post by dabbledash »

fuzz4lyfe wrote: post #300
epylar wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is what externality means -- "a side effect or consequence of an industrial or commercial activity that affects other parties without this being reflected in the cost of the goods or services involved." (unless this person is affecting the cost somehow as a result of this dislike) In a sense, economics is entirely about what people like and dislike.

So if we priced airlines in regards to all of their externalities, they would have to pay for climate change but would get a portion of the all revenue derived by business trips (ie. the time saved traveling by air compared to other modes of transport and what the employees traveling would have been able to produce during that time). I wonder if they would end up better off under that system.

They’re already capturing those benefits - they are among the reasons customers buy tickets and thus contribute to the price.

I’m sure positive externalities are a thing, but direct benefits to one party in a transaction aren’t externalities.

Re: A man who destroyed his multimillion dollar company in 10 seconds (2018)

#375

Post by EGreg »

skinnymuch wrote: post #368
EGreg wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably similar to what Mark Zuckerberg called people who trusted him with their data :) https://www.businessinsider.com/embarrassing-and-damaging-zu... ZUCK: yea so if you ever need info about anyone at harvard ZUCK: just ask ZUCK: i have over 4000 emails, pictures, addresses, sns FRIEND: what!? how'd you manage that one? ZUCK: people just submitted it ZUCK: i don't know why ZUCK: they "trust me" ZUCK: dumb fucks

I doubt almost anyone on HN is squeaky clean with what they said and wrote as a teenager.

I don’t see how that’s relevant. Can’t the same thing be said of the OP’s main character? Why have a story at all?

The point was that Mark Z had the same attitude about the people who shared their data with FB, and the history is replete with FB abusing that trust in myriad ways. Is Mark Z still a teenager? And furthermore, that other CEO guy reformed. Does that mean the story is pointless?

Here is the real point. Both this CEO and young Mark Z were right. They were selling crap and people were buying it. People really did simply share their info and back then Zuck was a little taken aback. The point is that we all collectively as a society buy De Beers and we have collectively begun thinking it’s totally cool to trust some third party with all our private data just so they can connect us. So this is actually a critique of society and how we do exactly the things that they said were pretty dumb - and we really enjoy doing them!

Re: A man who destroyed his multimillion dollar company in 10 seconds (2018)

#376

Post by [deleted] »

Smithalicious wrote: post #297
goodcanadian wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm having trouble deciding whether or not you are being serious. Yes, technically, the word "incredible" originally meant "not credible." However, in common usage, it simply means, "very good."

I don't see why you would suspect them of not being serious. Not everyone on this site is a native English speaker. I know when I was first learning English I'd get tripped up by things like awful and awesome, terrific and terrible, being the only one left after your friend has left, turning the alarm off after it goes off, and so on. Plenty of things in the English language that can look like the opposite of what th…

[deleted]

Re: A man who destroyed his multimillion dollar company in 10 seconds (2018)

#377

Post by sharadov »

fnord123 wrote: post #309
sharadov wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lululemon is genius, their quality is great, but the branding is even better! They revolutionized the exercise wear industry, were single-handedly responsible for "athleisure" and killing denim sales!

>were single-handedly responsible for "athleisure" Pretty sure that was Nike, Adidas, and Puma.

Nope, it was Lululemon, they were all making sporting apparel which you could wear while working out, but were nowhere close to the fabric, design, and style that Lululemon had, and they were completely clueless and neglecting the women's market. They eventually realized and have IMO caught on ( UA and Nike have great lines which have great fabrics, but am a guy, if you ask my wife she will go with Athleta, which is lower priced than Lululemon, but is comparable in a lot of aspects).

Re: A man who destroyed his multimillion dollar company in 10 seconds (2018)

#378

Post by Phillipharryt »

So I've actually done a fair amount of research on this speech, and there a few skipped points most times people report on it.

Firstly the audience loved the jokes, they laughed at them all. It wasn't like he delivered them to stunned faces and immediate shock. The only thing that brought him down was a newspaper reporter noted it down and newspapers pushed it as an artificial scandal. Everyone buying 5 pound earrings knew they were of very low quality, they just didn't want it being shouted at them in their daily news.

Secondly it wasn't even the first time he had publicly made these sorts of jokes, in fact it wasn't even the first time they had been published in the papers.

This was entirely a newspaper driven downfall, they wanted to see him fail and wanted to sell papers about a scandal, so they did.

Re: A man who destroyed his multimillion dollar company in 10 seconds (2018)

#379

Post by sharadov »

0xEFF wrote: post #347
fnord123 wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>were single-handedly responsible for "athleisure" Pretty sure that was Nike, Adidas, and Puma.

For men perhaps, not for women.

Am a guy and buy mostly UA ( their quality is kickass and they fit well). But people swear by Lululemon's quality and its ability to hold up well. IMO they've managed to become Patagonia-like, in gaining a cult-like following.

Re: A man who destroyed his multimillion dollar company in 10 seconds (2018)

#380

Post by sharadov »

trentnix wrote: post #281
mywittyname wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His comments weren't even controversial, as they echoed beliefs that are held by those in the fashion industry. Lots of clothing companies make it plainly obvious not everyone is supposed to buy their products.

He went into it in detail when he was interviewed by Guy Raz. Wilson defended himself by saying his comments had nothing to do with obesity, but rather material. He is a fabrics guy, and his clothes were being used to shape, a la Spanx, when they weren’t built to shape at all. It’s a fascinating interview and one of the best in the “How I Built This” series.

I second this, it was a fantastic interview. One of the things that stood out was how eloquent of a speaker that Chip Wilson is.
Post reply on HN