abannin

Don't fake identity. If the site requires a login, don't fake that login. This has legal implications.

There is a very active secondary market for sneakers. If you can buy before supply is exhausted, you can make some decent money.

Theory is very systematic if you start with listening, but will seem haphazard if you start with the physics.

You've never heard of this because it's not true. A note wants to resolve up or down based on it's relative distance from tonic. This had nothing to do with what it's named, the most important part of naming notes is not repeating letters in an 8-note scale.

> taking one example, F# "wants" to step up to G, whereas Gb "wants" to step down to F.

Uhhh....no? A flat or sharp can be the tonic, which does not lead to any other note. A note is named flat or sharp to maintain proper interval distance without repeating letters within the scale. A flat is typically not a leading tone because of interval distance, but can still want to resolve up or down. Any note can be consonant or dissonant, leading or resolved depending on the context.

Music theory is really a domain specific language. Like all languages (not programming), the only way to really learn is to converse with others. I don't think you can learn theory alone, it only makes sense when you talk about music using music theory with other musicians.

1) Talk to a lawyer. Details are going to vary wide depending on where you are and the documentation that exists.

2) Your work has value, quite possibly more value than the capital put in by Jim.

3) If you own 40%, Jim has to buy your 40%. You position as a shareholder is not related to your position as an employee. Ownership doesn't disappear. I don't quite understand how/why you would reduce to 5% from 40% (without dilution events).

4) Don't sign anything until you talk to a lawyer.

Whether or not the price falls within your expected range. Prices can rise faster than someone's perception of the price range, so the conclusion is that the asset is "overvalued". In other words, "overvalued" is a subjective conclusion that is weighted by human biases. What may be "overvalued" for one person might be "undervalued" for another. Another key component is the perception/faith of asset growth. Can the price of the asset continue to rise? If yes, then it is "undervalued".

- consequences for negative actions <--- big one

And probably more important, rewards for positive actions. Positive reinforcement is pretty powerful in general.

> Yes, but production <> distribution

Compare with the second paragraph: "The reality is that Facebook is one of the most powerful companies the tech industry — and arguably, the world — has ever seen. True, everything posted on Facebook is put there for free, either by individuals or professional content creators; and true, Facebook isn’t really irreplaceable when it comes to the generation of economic value; and it is also true that there are all kinds of alternatives when it comes to communication. However, to take these truths as evidence that Facebook is fragile requires a view of the world that is increasingly archaic."

FB doesn't pay for the content, which is a major advantage over traditional companies that do both creation and distribution (newspapers) or ones where content is licensed somehow (television, music labels). FB is agnostic to the costs of creating the content, but their networks necessitate producers to user their platform.

Thompson's point here isn't about the content itself, but rather the supply chain for the content. Because the internet effectively provides 'infinite' distribution, the traditional models of controlling distribution are worthless. This is a very consistent theme in his writings.

Consider that both the worthless and valuable content that you've defined use the same methods for distribution; Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc.

Okay, let's use another example. I waited tables in high school. I was very bad. I knew I was bad, but I worked hard to improve. Still, even after a few years of experience a random person who had never had a job before could walk in and get better tips than me. My boss wouldn't fire me because I showed up for shifts, but I was generally a very poor waiter. Eventually I got smart and stopped waiting tables, and the world became a better place.

It's very possible to be bad at something AND know that you're bad at it AND not be able to reach the proficiency to perform the task at a professional level.

Also, it's pretty clear that I can read. If you are going to insult me, it's better to insult my comprehension or argumentation. However, I would argue that it's generally better to just not insult other people.