Mikho

This will be a success. There is no need to sell an amount comparable to the Tesla Model S. It's Ferrari's first entry into the premium 5-seat EV sedan market. There are enough people who would pay any money to have an electric Ferrari. The fact that it's a rather everyday car—and not a supercar—makes it a very attractive option for rich people who need to show off. Design is also pretty good for the task. It doesn't compete with existing premium EV sedans but really stands out. It's unique, and that is its value prop. Should it look like a regular Ferrari but electric, it would compete with Ferrari's combustion engine supercars and would inevitably lose. It also shouldn't compete with the Porsche Taycan—a very nicely designed EV. The general public is not the target audience for this car to offer a generic design. So, Ferrari's unconventional design is the exact right choice.

P.S. It’s kind of like when Porsche entered the SUV market with the Cayenne, which didn’t have a conventional SUV look but still crashed the market.

Ferrari Luce is the nicest KIA design ever.

That kind of M&A shenanigan without actual M&A to not attract scrutinization is pretty popular this year. E.g., Meta's "acquisition" of ScaleAI for $14.8 billion and Alphabet's "reverse acquihire" of key talent from Windsurf in July 2025 for $2.4 billion for non-exclusive technology licensing rights and the hiring of top executives. Apparently, in all deals employees lost while founders gained personally but didn't explicitly try to make good for people who actually took a risk by trusting them.

That really diminishes attractiveness of working in a startup where all your efforts could be swooped out by a big player via just buying IP and acquihiring founders for a price cheaper than buying the whole company and without the hustle of regulatory scrutiny. Big tech literally kills competition and innovation guaranteeing its monopoly.

The author should really rethink the relations with clients and "freedom" they get in the process.

Back when I did websites for clients, often after carefully thinking a project through and getting to some final idea on how everything should look, feel, and operate, I presented this optimal concept to clients. Some would start recommending changes and adding their own ideas—which I most often already iterated through earlier during ideation and designing.

It rarely builds a good rapport with clients if you start explaining why their ideas on "improvements" are really not that good. Anyway, I would listen to them, nod, and do nothing as to their ideas. I would just stick to mine concept without wasting time for random client's "improvements"—leaving them to the last moment if a client would insist on them at the very end.

Funny thing is that clients usually, after more consideration and time would come on their own to the result I came to and presented to them—they just needed time to understand that their "improvements" aren't relevant.

Nevertheless, if they insisted on implementing their "improvements" (which almost never happened) I'd do it for additional price—most often for them to just see that it wasn't good idea to start with and get back to what I already did before.

So, sometimes, ignoring client's ideas really saves a lot of time.

I start thinking that Trump and Elon are Russian assets whose task is to destroy the US from the inside. Both were heavily involved with Russians before, travelled to Russia as private citizens, and they both could be compromised long ago. If Russia and China tried to think about ways to ruin the US, they couldn't come up with a better plan than what Trump and Musk do to the US as to both home and foreign policies.

If the main reason for blogging is to get an audience and/or become popular, I'd say it's not blogging. It should be a serious descision to do it as a job, not "blogging". If blogging is a personal project then it could help with following:

1. Blogging is a very good way to help sorting out own ideas and shape thoughts on a particular topic. Unless you write it down and try to express your idea coherently, thoughts are just bouncing inside your head without proper actionable output. I notices from my own experience that ideas form and progress much better when I write them down.

2. Blogging is helpful as a form of journalling about particular topic—to return to later. Sometimes I read my old posts to refresh my memory and often get surprised that it was written by me—after some time I forget what was the logic that led me to a particular idea or descision and old posts look like written by somebody else.

3. Blogging helps to discipline oneself. Writing and editing takes time and effort. Only regular stable blogging attracts any audience at all. Not that it's important, but it's good feeling when somebody finds what you wrote helpful. Many just want to get audience without understanding what it really takes. It's not that easy. So, as a byproduct of the first two points, one learns what it takes to produce good content with a regular cadence.

It takes effort to carefully write, edit, and rewrite. But it really helps with our own thought process, improve ability to shape ideas, helps save sorted out ideas for later, and disciplines ourselves.

So, I'd say blogging is a pure self-improvement exercise—fitness for the mind.

What really annoys is web-sites that force dark mode without an option to switch to light mode. There MUST be an obvious switch option when a web-site forces or offers dark mode—what matters is for a user to be able to change the mode. It's simple common sense and respectful to users.

Why iPhone? Why not another Android—not Google's one? For me, it looks like you wanted to switch to iOS and looked for an excuse to blame something else for your decision. You blamed Google, not Android. In this case the rational decision is to switch to another Android brand—not switch to iOS. So, you seem a bit dishonest here. Maybe even dishonest with your own self.

Jason just wasn't into it and invented a random reason to say no... and brag about it—after all, his day-to-day job is constantly tweeting, bragging, and pretending about giving advice to become visible for startups and get the deal flow at the same time showing those SaaStr conference goers to keep participating and paying. If numbers in the deck were impressive for the economics work for him personally, he would be begging founder to take his money despite any date or any other imperfections in the deck. But the numbers weren't. And Jason used it as a reason to remind about himself one more time to the public.

Now it's MAAMA (Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Meta, Alphabeth)

Here is a novel idea: why doesn't humanity instead of projecting a laser on a hand somehow create a small screen with high enough resolution and even bright colors that could be attached to a hand and every time one raises a hand it turns on to display information? Oh. Wait...

Those who think that A16Z—and many other VCs per se—started their own media arms or at least blogs to "help industry" probably lived under a rock. There are just 3 reasons for a VC to invest in its media arm:

1. Help to create a deal-flow by writing about a current thing or their specialization in tech;

2. Promote its portfolio and pump it in every possible way for it to increase in value;

3. Promote its agendas and narratives like regulation/untiregulation.

So, yes. A16Z's media channels are a marketing tool.

This a classic self-righteous text from a person who doesn't want to take ANY risk but wants to be a technical co-founder in the notion of "pay me the full market salary and give a lot of shares for me to even consider being a co-founder". The whole post gives the impression that being a co-founder means to this person not starting his own business but getting a paid side gig. This person, apparently, considers that an MVP is the only value that is created by a startup team.

The truth is everybody on the team risks—tech or non-tech founders: both types invest their own time and expertise regardless of a task to be done. The fact that non-technical founder doesn't code MVP doesn't mean that there is no time/expertise invested that moves the needle. So, both invest and should better "date" for some time to test getting along.

The funny part is that it's people like the author who got easily tricked by a good salesman and smooth talkers into working for free. A good salesperson clearly sees what motivates such people and promises a lot of it to only deliver nothing later.