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

I was once a Facebook fool

public.numair.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 177 posts

Re: I was once a Facebook fool

#71

Post by larrys »

sanj wrote: post #66
TomOfTTB wrote: post #34

I’m not saying the author is wrong here but I think he’s unfair in attacking just Facebook. The one thing I learned from my time in the valley is that EVERYONE is looking out for themselves. That isn’t meant as negatively as it sounds. People go there to prove themselves. Either by making money or making their mark on the world (which is why people like Sean Parker stick around even after they’ve made money). But wha…

Steve Blank feels otherwise: http://steveblank.com/2011/09/15/the-pay-it-forward-culture/ You don't have to be Machiavellian to succeed.

I worked with Steve at a company. Steve isn't a nice guy. Steve is definitely a win at all costs type of person despite how he might try to portray himself right now. He brought men and women to tears and belittled them as did many of the people under him at his apparent approval.

Re: I was once a Facebook fool

#72

Post by mmaro »

spinchange wrote: post #57

I recall Chamath Palihapitiya also figured somewhat prominently in the Beacon saga. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_Beacon#Privacy_concern... Edit: I see the FA has been edited, now referring to him as "AOL Guy"

He also replaced 'iLike' with 'the "competitor"' and 'Sean Parker and Mark Zuckerberg' with 'senior Facebook executives'

Re: I was once a Facebook fool

#73

Post by Duff »

randomdata wrote: post #50
raganwald wrote: post #39

Sharecropper woes: http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2003/07/12/WebsThePla... http://raganwald.posterous.com/the-freedom-to-eat-pizza http://weblog.raganwald.com/2004/11/sharecropping-in-orchard...

Sharecropping is kind of a weird analogy to use here. In farming, sharecropping is the low risk way to grow your business. It is the landlord that takes on much of the burden if the crop fails. But with small risk comes small reward. In technology, "sharecropping" is the high risk venture. The landlord here assumes no risk at all if your application fails. The burden falls squarely on you. However, with the high risk…

Huh?

Sharecropping exists when landowners have limited access to capital, but extensive land holdings and abundant access to indigent labor. It was a technique devised to keep the tenant around until after harvest time.

Poor farmers have lots of children, and the large resulting labor force gives the landlord an incentive to evict the tenant or jack up the rent immediately after harvest. It was popular in places like Scotland, Ireland and the Reconstruction South, so you can be sure the system is/was more beneficial to the land owner.

Re: I was once a Facebook fool

#74

Post by Duff »

nradov wrote: post #69
eavc wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree; I think the analogy is apt. You lack the resource to grow your business, so you borrow someone else's and operate at their whim. Contracts aside, the sharecropper's entire livelihood could be undermined on the whim of the landowner. Someone else has power over your ability to produce.

Not at all. Sharecroppers are typically protected by contract law; landlords can't just arbitrarily evict them in the middle of the growing season. By contrast Facebook can change their API or terms of service at any time. Facebook developers have no way to seek redress (except the court of public opinion).

Only an idiot would evict the farmer in the middle of the season. You wait until after the harvest.

Re: I was once a Facebook fool

#75

Post by vicparekh »

nirvana wrote: post #51
TomOfTTB wrote: post #34

I’m not saying the author is wrong here but I think he’s unfair in attacking just Facebook. The one thing I learned from my time in the valley is that EVERYONE is looking out for themselves. That isn’t meant as negatively as it sounds. People go there to prove themselves. Either by making money or making their mark on the world (which is why people like Sean Parker stick around even after they’ve made money). But wha…

You can look out for yourself without lying, cheating, or backstabbing others. You can operate as a moral, ethical person, and not have to mislead people, or break your promises. Looking out for yourself is not the problem, dishonesty is. This becomes a bigger problem when dishonesty becomes part of the culture.

You are smoking crack

Re: I was once a Facebook fool

#76

Post by aridiculous »

larrys wrote: post #71
sanj wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Steve Blank feels otherwise: http://steveblank.com/2011/09/15/the-pay-it-forward-culture/ You don't have to be Machiavellian to succeed.

I worked with Steve at a company. Steve isn't a nice guy. Steve is definitely a win at all costs type of person despite how he might try to portray himself right now. He brought men and women to tears and belittled them as did many of the people under him at his apparent approval.

In his mixergy interview, he was a nice, great, caring guy, but when Andrew took a wrong step, Blank sort of lost it on air. I chalked it up to he having a bad day or being highly stressed, but it was interesting to see such a quick shift in character.

It reminds me of that scene in "Inside Job" where Columbia Dean Glenn Hubbard changes tone after a question he doesn't like. It's as if he pulled a mask off and became a monster.

It's those small behavioral observations that make humans so interesting to me.

Note: Steve Blank has chosen to be a public figure so I don't believe talking about his behavior is equivalent to gossip.

Re: I was once a Facebook fool

#77

Post by joejohnson »

veyron wrote: post #61

Every time i read something like this, I think about the fred wilson quote about being someone's bitch. Anyone have that direct link?

I had no idea what you were talking about. But Googling "Fred Wilson bitch" gives this: http://techcrunch.com/2011/05/23/fred-wilson-be-your-own-bit...

Re: I was once a Facebook fool

#78

Post by randomdata »

Duff wrote: post #73
randomdata wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sharecropping is kind of a weird analogy to use here. In farming, sharecropping is the low risk way to grow your business. It is the landlord that takes on much of the burden if the crop fails. But with small risk comes small reward. In technology, "sharecropping" is the high risk venture. The landlord here assumes no risk at all if your application fails. The burden falls squarely on you. However, with the high risk…

Huh? Sharecropping exists when landowners have limited access to capital, but extensive land holdings and abundant access to indigent labor. It was a technique devised to keep the tenant around until after harvest time. Poor farmers have lots of children, and the large resulting labor force gives the landlord an incentive to evict the tenant or jack up the rent immediately after harvest. It was popular in places like…

Sharecropping is an arrangement with a land owner who rents out their land to a farmer for the payment of a percentage of the crop instead of cash.

It reduces the risk for the farmer because they only have to pay based on what they are able to grow instead of a fixed amount as seen in most cash-rent arrangements. The landowner stands to lose if the crop is a failure, but can make more if the crop is a success.

The term may also come with some historical meaning, but that is what sharecropping has come to mean today.

Edit: Down vote me if you wish, but that is what sharecropping is in the rural community. Speaking as a farmer, sharecropping is a great way to access land in a low-risk way. I don't know why sharecropping land is seen as a negative.

Re: I was once a Facebook fool

#79

Post by pingswept »

cosgroveb wrote: post #46
pingswept wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Totally agreed about search engine updates. I also agree that we all have some dependence on others as part of living in society, but that's at a different level-- I don't need to worry about Safeway returning "access denied" next time I try to buy a box of cereal. I disagree about email filtering. A friend sending another friend an email that says, "Check out this cool thing I saw" does not get filtered by anyone. E…

Have you ever tried to send bulk e-mail? Even if you're doing everything right with double-opt-in, watching your sender scores, managing your bounce-backs, etc, etc, etc, you will get banned by some major e-mail provider (say Yahoo or Comcast) and spend days to weeks (sometimes months) working to get it sorted out. So, no, I don't disagree with the e-mail thing at all.

I was talking about interpersonal email ("A friend sending another friend an email"), but by chance, yes, I have sent bulk email. I don't dispute that bulk messages can be banned, sometimes capriciously, by the big guys. My point is that for social emails, i.e. emails between people, the email system is a very open, free system. Overall, that's the kind of system I want to base my livelihood on.

To give a concrete example: a few years ago, I set up an email server in my garage using an old computer that was being thrown away at work. I used all free software. It successfully sent email. None of my emails were blocked. I engaged with my social network, (my "friends") using it. If my ISP had blocked my email sending, there were many, many other providers willing to send my email for the price of the connection. Given that spam cannot be eliminated, despite decades of trying, I think it's fair to say that I won't run out of alternatives, especially given that the email I want to send is innocuous.

By comparison, I cannot set up a Facebook server in my garage. If Facebook blocks me, I'm done. If that was my livelihood, I'm fully screwed.

Re: I was once a Facebook fool

#80

Post by mmaro »

aridiculous wrote: post #76
larrys wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked with Steve at a company. Steve isn't a nice guy. Steve is definitely a win at all costs type of person despite how he might try to portray himself right now. He brought men and women to tears and belittled them as did many of the people under him at his apparent approval.

In his mixergy interview, he was a nice, great, caring guy, but when Andrew took a wrong step, Blank sort of lost it on air. I chalked it up to he having a bad day or being highly stressed, but it was interesting to see such a quick shift in character. It reminds me of that scene in "Inside Job" where Columbia Dean Glenn Hubbard changes tone after a question he doesn't like. It's as if he pulled a mask off and became…

It's been a while since I've watched it, but I didn't get the impression that Blank lost it. As I remember, Andrew just made a big deal out of his minor misstep and focused on the misstep rather than getting the interview back on track. I think most interviewees, not just Blank, would find this annoying.
Post reply on HN