191–200 of 207 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sadly most people (at least in my country) use Facebook for this.
In Italy Meetup was monopolized by a populistic political movement in the '10s and nobody use it since then.
Investors in Bending Spoons include musician The Weekend, tennis player Andre Agassi, movie star Bradley Cooper, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, and director/actor Taika Waititi, among many other famous people: https://bendingspoons.com/people (scroll to the bottom to see all names). I wonder if any of these illustrious backers are aware of the true business model of Bending Spoons, which can only be described as sca…
The most notable acquisition in recent times has been Evernote. They're doing exactly as you are describing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not only that, but your goal as a shareholder is to benefit financially from the company. If a company is a bad actor and you know it, you are expressly financing and benefitting from bad acts. I’m not sure why other commenters are trying to abstract this fact out of existence. It is not rocket science!
> you are expressly financing This is the part I don't understand. You generally buy stock from other stock holders. The company doesn't get the proceeds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think owning stock is a financial endorsement of what the company is actually doing- you own a fraction of the company and saying ‘I just want a return on my money, no matter what the company does’ does not absolve you from actually financially supporting bad actors. If I hoist you in to a building to steal something I am endorsing your behavior. Same thing.
50% of my retirement funding is in Australian mining. Is it sustainable? Is it good for the environment? Is it an industry known for ethics? No, no, and no. Will they stop mining if no-one holds their public shares? Lol, no, lots of privately held mining companies exist who tend to perform even less ethically. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hancock_Prospecting#Attitudes_... So, if they're going to dig the stuff up to…
Your vote may be paltry, but it’s still your vote. Use it wisely. It matters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> you are expressly financing This is the part I don't understand. You generally buy stock from other stock holders. The company doesn't get the proceeds.
So if you buy stolen goods from someone who bought the stolen goods from the thief, and you knew the goods were stolen, you are doing nothing unethical. That’s all you’re saying, which is a position you can have, but it is a sad one. And you are, in fact, contributing to bad acts. The initial buyer may not have bought the investment if they knew there wasn’t a rube down the line that would take it off their hands.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've always wanted to build a digital burial business like this, actually. It feels like a great way to tax late adopters' unwillingness to take on the risk of switching to a newer, better platform. As a late adopter myself of a great many things I feel like I understand the crotchety reluctance well enough to make a good go at it - maybe I'll unlearn my own risk aversion along the way.
It's not just the risk. Something like Evernote, for example, if someone has been using it religiously for years, there's a real cost associated with migrating to something new (and probably no better unless it's a completely different workflow).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The most notable acquisition in recent times has been Evernote. They're doing exactly as you are describing.
I've been Evernote user for years, didn't see any ads. Am I not looking in the right place?
How is the new owner of Evernote using my data?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except for Eric Schmidt, that cap table reads like a bunch of suckers trying to "diversify their success." Barry Diller, on the other hand, is no sucker.
I also like how we are attaching these people to this company as though the Weekend and Taika Watiti sat down and sculpted a plan to get rich by being dickheads. I bet their portfolio managers did that, and then attached their names to the deal to lend it an air of credibility, probably negotiating some sweet bonuses and spiffs for themselves in the process, and now this reads like they're all a POS, which, while tha…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except for Eric Schmidt, that cap table reads like a bunch of suckers trying to "diversify their success." Barry Diller, on the other hand, is no sucker.
I also like how we are attaching these people to this company as though the Weekend and Taika Watiti sat down and sculpted a plan to get rich by being dickheads. I bet their portfolio managers did that, and then attached their names to the deal to lend it an air of credibility, probably negotiating some sweet bonuses and spiffs for themselves in the process, and now this reads like they're all a POS, which, while tha…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not tricky. Someone owns it.
Here is an example of the complexity. I just purchased a single share of Google. Your Google Maps application has thus changed ownership. Boom, I just sold that single share, now the ownership changed again. I realize this sounds tongue in cheek but a PE firm trying to get around ownership disclosure requirements can do something just as easily, both with public and private companies.