51–60 of 137 posts
Is this the same guy who recently posted about trying to bluff Steve Jobs, getting called out on it and losing a deal? I wonder how many more stories like these he has lol Edit: found the link for those interested https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28826437
Yeah now he's starting to give me pinky and the brain vibes, like always getting so close and then fucking up ;o
Lost a $125M deal, but gained a $265M one months later. It may have hurt originally, but sounds like things eventually ended up better than expected!
In sales there is a term "know when to stop selling", this story is kind of a variant of that. If you have acceptable terms worked out, stop "selling", stop trying to show or add more value to the deal. Close the deal you have, and then work on any new or additional things.
It’s something I’ve been always struggling to accept. Be it sales, academic debates, court cases, or just dinner table conversations. Why does the outcome depend on the timing and specific choice of words used? Isn’t it a proof or irrationality of it all? Shouldn’t the outcome converge to the "best" one (optimal, true) the longer the process takes?
Twitter web UI is not loading tweets for me past the 18th message. Is anyone else facing this or knows how to read the rest? Edit: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1449858706750033921.html
They've seemingly done some a/b on me so that many times it requires me to log in/sign up. Also looking at you reddit, "this thread can be read in the app". Thank the kings and queens for 3rd party viewers (using Slide).
(This is how I stopped using YouTube)
Nitter.net link. Here's the link that should have been submitted to HN assuming not all HN users have/want Twitter accounts: https://nitter.net/apartovi/status/1449856639331340289
In sales there is a term "know when to stop selling", this story is kind of a variant of that. If you have acceptable terms worked out, stop "selling", stop trying to show or add more value to the deal. Close the deal you have, and then work on any new or additional things.
It’s something I’ve been always struggling to accept. Be it sales, academic debates, court cases, or just dinner table conversations. Why does the outcome depend on the timing and specific choice of words used? Isn’t it a proof or irrationality of it all? Shouldn’t the outcome converge to the "best" one (optimal, true) the longer the process takes?
Practically every significant real-world interaction involves judgment calls, heuristics, and personal feelings. They feed in to you taking your best guess based on your limited information.
So adding more time to the process doesn't always make it better. You may learn, for example, that the person seems untrustworthy. "Selling past the close" implies that the person doesn't understand the situation, and is pursuing more contact for some reason other than your own best interest. The disconnect suggests that you may not understand what's going on, and it may be in your best interest to break off a deal that may not be what you think it is.
Humans do practically everything on the basis of very incomplete information. They use timing and word choice, among many other things, to try to close that gap.
This is a very important lesson. This isn't a case of humans failing to be logical. It's a case of incomplete information, and if you treat it as if it were a complete-information game, you're going to lose. That's illogical.
If it were a job that we could send computers to, we would. We can't, because we can't define the job well enough for the computers to do it. And this is a lesson for all programmers as well: most of our job is not talking to the computers, but talking to the humans to figure out what they actually want. If they could have said it in complete and logical terms, they'd have written the programs themselves.
From pg: “Whoah, I had no idea about any of this till now...” https://mobile.twitter.com/paulg/status/1449861338390466561
Why is everyone so sure Yahoo would not have reneged on the deal anyway? If they were ready to renege the way they did, which is extremely ruthless, what makes you all think Yahoo would divulge they were doing due diligence on Viaweb with an existing floating offer already in place for LinkExchange? Maybe another company was out for Viaweb, Yahoo secures LinkExchange, but continues to try for Viaweb, totally ready to…
Lost a $125M deal, but gained a $265M one months later. It may have hurt originally, but sounds like things eventually ended up better than expected!
> The lessons proved helpful 6 months later when Microsoft offered $265M for LinkExchange.