>I'm not going to pass judgment on the ethics or usefulness of this app... >2. Instead of being partisan, maybe you would want a >"HotspotsForAmerica" that would just remind people to vote >for the candidate of their choice, instead of telling people >who they should vote for.

I'm not going to criticize this comment but ...

I was contrasting my feedback with the "this is a horrible thing to do" comments that popped up before mine. But, yeah, point taken.

Spammers and 419 bots probably account for a good chunk of hotmail (and yahoo) usage.

He says most X, and then supports that with anecdotal evidence some of which is false. In fact I can come up with more examples of exceptions than he can come up with examples that conform to his thesis. Jack Dorsey (twitter,square), Elon Musk (paypal, tesla,spacex), Tony Hsieh (linkexchange, zappos), justin kan (justin.tv, twitch,socialcam) are some examples of entrepreneurs with serial success. I can think of a lot more. Not disputing the thrust of the article but he doesn't support it with a lot of solid examples.

You could name a hundred, it still doesn't dispute "most" as there are tens of millions of businessmen out there, the vast majority of which aren't serial successes. Regardless, when someone says "most" they are already conceding the point that there are likely many exceptions. Rebutting with examples to make an argument they've already conceded is simply pointless and shows you aren't really paying attention to what they're trying to say.

And you can keep saying "most", it still doesn't dispute the fact that without hard data or more solid anecdotal evidence to back your claim, you're mostly talking out of your arse.

That could very well could be, so you ask for citations or you ask for clarification, or even say you're talking out of your ass; what you don't do is pull out singular anecdotes to make a case he's already conceded implicitly and think you're somehow rebutting anything. Rebutting a statical claim (i.e. most) with singular anecdotes is simply illogical, let alone one that's already been conceded in the question itself.

If I say most Asians have black hair, and you counter with I disagree because I've seen a blonde Asian; your rebuttal makes zero sense, it's fallacious.

Sorry to burst your bubble. This is one of the dumbest comments I've ever seen here. I don't know where you studied debate or 'logical fallacies' as you put it. Here's a more apt analogy for you: It's as if you argued that most Asians have yellow hair and then you gave 5 examples of Asians, one of whom actually has red hair to bolster your argument. The original comment (the one you were replying to) then pointed out to you that those 5 examples don't prove anything and in fact one of those has red hair. And then I added that, though I don't dispute that it could be true that most Asians in fact have yellow hair I can actually think up more than 5 examples of Asians that have red hair, if you think your 5 examples(including one false example) is proof supporting your argument. This is not the same thing as saying that I have proof that most Asians are red-headed. Not sure why I'm even bothering to explain this to you as you seem incapable of understanding even the original commentors point let alone simple "logic". The only person making zero sense here is you.

You've burst no bubble, your ego just doesn't allow you to admit when you're wrong. Your argument was fallacious, regardless of whether the original commentors was as well. He could be entirely wrong, that does nothing to support your failed counter argument. Your argument is structurally wrong regardless of his facts.

Thank You! ... I see very smart people do this all the time and it simply baffles me.

Just say "Hey, where's your data?" instead of "my friend is Asian, and he's a red head so there goes your argument" ...

Lots of smart people never studied debate or logical fallacies and never learned the difference between a sound argument and good sounding rhetoric. They get emotional and don't realize they aren't making any sense.

Is it not axiomatic that there are more startup failures than successes?

I think the fact that we don't hear more about the serial successes and we can name them on one hand says something. These founders have everything going for them the second time around with being able to attract money and talent as two very important things to have. And even with that it seems at least from what I've read the the second time big successes are few and far between.

You're being sarcastic right?

This is not necessarily true. Some people rent out the living room couch as well as the spare bedroom. Besides in the second lessee case, the landlord at least gets to vet the second person.

Vetting only lessens the chance of catastrophic damage from an idiot tenant, though. It does nothing to mitigate wear and tear. That was what my now-masisvely-downvoted point was. The "wear and tear" argument is on pretty shaky ground.

The wear and tear argument was not made along with a vetting argument. Vetting is one issue. Wear and tear is another issue. There is some ground between the perfect tenant and the idiot who burns a place down. There are all those people in the middle that go about their lives and little things happen. But have you ever heard the saying "drive it like its a rental"? People will naturally be slightly more careful with things they own or have a direct responsibility to take care of. The more people you have using a space that are not directly responsible for its care, the more likely those little things will happen. We're not talking about the catastrophic damage. We're talking about things like the extra nicks in the banister caused by someone dragging their suitcase up the stairs. When you have a new person dragging their suitcase up (and then back down) the stairs once a week, the chances for additional nicks goes up. Eventually all those little things start to build up. And it is pretty easy for a one of those rotating guests that caused a little more damage to just move along since its not their apartment building. People who live there and have a responsibility for the place (and coincidentally have been vetted) are more likely to notify the landlord to get it corrected.

For those of us at work with mute permanently turned on of necessity, a quick summary?

- He's not planning on buying FB stock because of their support for bills like CISPA.

- Investors might not like Zuckerberg's "builder culture"

- He wouldn't be surprised to see more acquisitions by FB

- We need more programmers

- When he sold Reddit to privately-held Conde he knew who he had to satisfy, unlike Zuckerberg and his investors.

As the headline suggests, CISPA.

You need to adjust your cat's feeding cycle.

Um. What was the point that? (and I read all of it)

I see a problem with this approach. In 5 years much of your equipment will be obsolete and have almost zero value on the second hand market. And if you do decide to use them, everyone will have moved on to new media/software.

Technology only becomes obsolete when it no longer solves a problem you have. It becomes irrelevant when it solves a problem you no longer have.

He is investing in stuff that will allow him to create. The only problem is if he can't create stuff faster than his competitors (not much of a problem if you have enough talent and skill) or if people suddenly become no longer interested in the stuff that he wants to make (which also seems unlikely).

I don't see anyone creating anything with an 8-track or VHS tape except as a novelty because it would be painfully slow and the quality not up to par compared with what we have now. It's only useful if he's creating stuff and earning money/fame/fulfillment or whatever rocks his boat. But as 'investment' for some future date when he decides to use them he might be better off investing the money pending that future date which brings us back to square one.

You're describing obsolete formats. Some stuff that was first created during the 8-track era is still desirable and available in other formats.

Besides, I took his comment to mean that he's buying the equipment to develop new and marketable skills.