How Jack Dorsey Runs Both Twitter, Square • Hacker News Board

Re: How Jack Dorsey Runs Both Twitter, Square

#71

Post by dang » Mon, Dec 28, 2015, 9:48 AM UTC

bobsbigboy wrote: post #44

dang wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Empirically, no, it's nowhere near enough. Also, sometimes such comments get upvoted.

If you can't trust the community's votes, perhaps the voting system should be viewed as a failed experiment. I'm not being facetious. After all, if you look at HN's front page five or six years ago, and compare it to the front page today, you'll see that HN used to be a legitimately useful tool for entrepreneurs; whereas now it is primarily a source of frivolous distractions. There's almost nothing on this site that…

What are some examples of stories that help entrepreneurs but that don't appear on HN?

Re: How Jack Dorsey Runs Both Twitter, Square

#72

Post by fao_ » Mon, Dec 28, 2015, 12:47 PM UTC

wyclif wrote: post #38

fao_ wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the Wall Street Journal, it is essentially articles written for CEOs and their staff; what do you expect?

As of 2013, the WSJ had a print circulation of 2.4 million, and 900,000 digital subscribers. Do you seriously think all of those people are CEOs and staff? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wall_Street_Journal

It doesn't all have to be CEOs and staff -- my point was that the WSJ is targeted towards those readers.

Re: How Jack Dorsey Runs Both Twitter, Square

#73

Post by geofft » Mon, Dec 28, 2015, 6:18 PM UTC

wyclif wrote: post #66

geofft wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google's results for "how many companies are there in the US" bring up a bunch of credible-looking hits putting the number in the multiples of millions. Put another way, 2.4 million + 900,000 is a bit over one percent of the US population. I've heard the phrase "one percent" before...

I'm not sure what your point is. It's clear that WSJ has a readership in the millions, even if you dispute the precise circulation numbers. And that's what my response to the parent was about. It won't do to suggest that only CEOs and their staff read it.

My point is that the number of companies, and hence the number of CEOs, is also in the millions, even if you restrict just to the US. So it's certainly numerically possible that it's written for CEOs and their staff (and people who want to be CEOs), which is a much larger number.

Re: How Jack Dorsey Runs Both Twitter, Square

#74

Post by wyclif » Mon, Dec 28, 2015, 7:04 PM UTC

geofft wrote: post #73

wyclif wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what your point is. It's clear that WSJ has a readership in the millions, even if you dispute the precise circulation numbers. And that's what my response to the parent was about. It won't do to suggest that only CEOs and their staff read it.

My point is that the number of companies, and hence the number of CEOs, is also in the millions, even if you restrict just to the US. So it's certainly numerically possible that it's written for CEOs and their staff (and people who want to be CEOs), which is a much larger number.

If that were the case, it would apply to every large-circulation publication, though. So it's a moot point. You could just as easily say the same thing about the NYTimes, the Financial Times, or the Economist.