181–190 of 209 posts
But I'm also slightly conflicted - why did I laugh when the Arabic reporter threw his shoe at Bush a few months ago? In retrospect, that event should have been just as inexcusable. What if Georgey wrote up a similar blog post about his experience? How would I have felt then?
I do agree that this is over the line. But I'm also slightly conflicted - why did I laugh when the Arabic reporter threw his shoe at Bush a few months ago? In retrospect, that event should have been just as inexcusable. What if Georgey wrote up a similar blog post about his experience? How would I have felt then?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So suppose the cops arrest him. He is unlikely (statistically speaking) to be held without bail, so he's out in a day or two. Then you have a trial. Suppose you have people like me on the jury -- I know that morons threaten to kill each other all the time on the internet, in person, and on CB radio and via snail mail and every other means of communication man has invented. I would likely acquit unless you can present…
Why can't you have a very brief trial where you explain the definition of assault and present the uncontroversial evidence of the assault, and that's that? Not trying to argue. Just don't see why that wouldn't work. the jury should just be like "well, it's a crime, and he did it" instead of saying it's common so we'll ignore it.
I have threatened bloody murder to many a bad library author, and the last thing I need is to get jailed because of that ;)
Arrington has spat in the face of many startups and blogs, metaphorically speaking, and the most successful business people in general are ruthless. This doesn't excuse the literal spitting behaviour, but Techcrunch is a blog with way too much power, for better or worse depending on the way you look at it.
why does everyone think startups are doomed if they get a bad TC review? There's a perfect example of this THIS WEEK! Arrington has been ripping into Cha Cha for years, and they just got a massive funding round.
I've never used it before, so I decided to give both it, Google, Yahoo, Live Search and Ask.com the same search phrase in response to this comment and see what the results are.
What is the speed of light? - I felt a simple enough question.
Google took just 0.11 seconds to give me an exact answer.
Yahoo took 0.28 seconds
Live Search has no timer, but it was much less than 1 second, I assume around the same speed as Yahoo
Ask.com no timer, but same perceived speed as both Yahoo and Live Search
EDIT - it's now 4:25pm, still no SMS on my mobile phone from ChaCha.. I think its fair to say that comparing 10 minutes to 0.11 seconds is a pretty clear indicator why human search isn't a good idea.
Even if you take out the signup stage, human reaction time can't even compete with 0.11 seconds and that doesn't begin to factor in things like time it takes to read the question.
EDIT #2 - 5:06pm, still no SMS...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
an example of how low folks in our industry can go There's nothing special about our industry, crazy people are everywhere. It's a simple numbers game, become popular enough and your popularity will cover some number of mentally unstable individuals. Actresses, singers and presidents have all been shot for no other reason then they were famous. Public criticism or lack of coverage probably makes things worse for Arri…
I don't see why police couldn't do anything about the dangerous guy intimidating and threatening him. Is serious intimidation really not a crime of any sort?
You must be new here...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's impossible to know the answer, since it's hidden somewhere deep inside Mike's subconscious. My intuition says that he'd be more willing to put up with something like that if his company was still growing rapidly.
I disagree, it is more than possible - it was the likely outcome. As Shakespeare once wrote "If you prick us, do we not bleed?" I think the problem is that people are blurring the lines between the professional Arrington and the personal Arrington. Let me highlight it using a hypothetical but extreme case. You start up a new web app. For every 100 user signups, I get to kick you in the groin (literally, not metaphori…
But when the ratio between groin kicks and sign ups started going in the wrong direction, I'd want out.
Hey, it was your metaphor, not mine... :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
why does everyone think startups are doomed if they get a bad TC review? There's a perfect example of this THIS WEEK! Arrington has been ripping into Cha Cha for years, and they just got a massive funding round.
Just because ChaCha got funding, doesn't necessarily make it a good idea. I've never used it before, so I decided to give both it, Google, Yahoo, Live Search and Ask.com the same search phrase in response to this comment and see what the results are. What is the speed of light? - I felt a simple enough question. Google took just 0.11 seconds to give me an exact answer. Yahoo took 0.28 seconds Live Search has no timer…
It's so weird for people to base VC investments purely on "the team" -- I've always figured (as I gradully ramp my startup to my full time job) -- its great to have a great team -- and you know what else helps? having a fucking awesome idea.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just because ChaCha got funding, doesn't necessarily make it a good idea. I've never used it before, so I decided to give both it, Google, Yahoo, Live Search and Ask.com the same search phrase in response to this comment and see what the results are. What is the speed of light? - I felt a simple enough question. Google took just 0.11 seconds to give me an exact answer. Yahoo took 0.28 seconds Live Search has no timer…
it's a bad idea, it's poorly executed, TC gave it a bad review, and it still got funding. It's so weird for people to base VC investments purely on "the team" -- I've always figured (as I gradully ramp my startup to my full time job) -- its great to have a great team -- and you know what else helps? having a fucking awesome idea.
VCs need to work with the team, need to have faith in the team, and need to have a sense that the ideas will come. The current idea is a good start, and an indication, but in the grander scheme of things, it's the team that reall counts. They're the ones that will make things work.
A good team with an awesome idea is not investable.
An awesome team with a good idea, is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it's a bad idea, it's poorly executed, TC gave it a bad review, and it still got funding. It's so weird for people to base VC investments purely on "the team" -- I've always figured (as I gradully ramp my startup to my full time job) -- its great to have a great team -- and you know what else helps? having a fucking awesome idea.
I respectfully disagree in the detail of what you say. It's essential to have a great team. It's good to have an awesome idea, but if you have a great team then the ideas will come, and even if this one won't work, the next one probably will. VCs need to work with the team, need to have faith in the team, and need to have a sense that the ideas will come. The current idea is a good start, and an indication, but in th…
David Hornik (August Capital; Ventureblog) basically says this also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwY0ac5XI_0
And, the truth is, A teams usually don't have B or C ideas, because they recognize, "Gee. We're looking at this thing. It's an interesting market. We have an idea. A particular approach." And, maybe it's an A-minus idea. Maybe you say, "Well, I'm not sure how that's going to evolve, but it'll probably evolve in an interesting way with this team," then I'm happy to invest and see how it goes, because, historically what's happened is they've figured out that there was some other twist, or there was a better market, or there was a better way to get to a group of people.
And so I would always start with the people, first.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it's a bad idea, it's poorly executed, TC gave it a bad review, and it still got funding. It's so weird for people to base VC investments purely on "the team" -- I've always figured (as I gradully ramp my startup to my full time job) -- its great to have a great team -- and you know what else helps? having a fucking awesome idea.
I respectfully disagree in the detail of what you say. It's essential to have a great team. It's good to have an awesome idea, but if you have a great team then the ideas will come, and even if this one won't work, the next one probably will. VCs need to work with the team, need to have faith in the team, and need to have a sense that the ideas will come. The current idea is a good start, and an indication, but in th…
Maybe I'm biased because I have no previous ventures and VC mildly interests me :)