adocracy

Fuck that noise. I'm building big and WSJ can suck it.

Intellectually, you're on the entrepreneurial path, with a purpose. How you emotionally defend yourself is also part of the entrepreneurial path - we work more hours for less money (on average) because we "control our own destiny" which implies of sense of ownership over one's life that you can't get elsewhere working towards someone else's bottom line. That's probably a myth, but it's an important one for maintaining our psychological health while under the stress of under-delivering. Don't be confused here - as an entrepreneur, you will ALWAYS feel like you're under-delivering, whether on time, or on traction, or on product, or on revenues, or on team, or on awareness... That's an unfortunate part of the path. But it's also an important part of the drive to improve the product, improve the team, etc. Entrepreneurs unfortunately also have a high rate of depression - I'm not adequately versed in those personality types to make any assessments as to why. But as an entrepreneur, I can tell you that, personally, I face that stress every day and yet carry on because I feel like my work is important. I'm not building follow-on products - I'm trying to build first-to-market products, also with a purpose. So either that purpose has to carry you through these tough defensive discussions and resulting stress, or that purpose isn't sufficient, and you'll drop the product and/or the title entrepreneur. If you're going to own your own path, you either do it wholly, or you don't. Trying to figure out a middle path will kill the average person. Don't be average.

I hope this takedown isn't reflecting the emergence of an ad tech cabal...

"What is Aleppo?" = throwaway vote.

you show up, take your ballot which registers a receipt, and abstain on that particular office/issue. but at least showing up to register your abstention IS your vote.

Sure it is - but it's universal to citizens participating in that society. if you're outside the system, YOU'RE OUTSIDE THE SYSTEM, including UBI. Doesn't mean you have to pick one candidate - you can abstain, as long as you show up to record your abstention.

Voting should be the single required act to trigger your Universal Basic Income for the year.

Looks like it's a county-by-county lookup function, crossed with state voting laws. We're building something county-by-county too - difficult locality matching issues.

Not everything is about earning money. Sometimes it's (hopefully) about empowering more direct democracy.

The Marissa Mayer effect still lingering? And a culture of data proofs over creative experimentation? So it's not that the UI is bad - is just stereotypically "Google" and has been homogenized to emphasize technical features over customer delight. A better question is why customer service capabilities have lagged so significantly.

Note a specific lack of discussion about Uber's losses, or Theranos's potential fraud, or valuation trends, or...

(2) is untenable. A company could theoretically widely distribute a drug with unknown effects/consequences, only to find after the fact that it negatively affects >10% of patients causing death and disability in major numbers. File for bankruptcy and disappear with no ability for the sufferors to get lifetime care compensation? Catastrophic, with no recourse.

the power efficiency is a good achievement, and the hashrate is great, but it's hard to see how US/Brazil/German home miners can compete against the energy costs (both pure hashing power, but also cooling costs) of regional competitive advantages present in Iceland or Russia or Canada mining locations. As mining efficiency approaches the Moore's Law limit present in the commoditized CPU/storage markets, then power generation costs become the true competitive markers?

I don't agree here. It's both. It's a market failure when the price point (or transparency around the prices) doesn't convince new entrants to persevere through the existing regulatory process. It's market failure when the interests of all stake holders aren't successfully incorporated into the pricing. It's not a regulatory failure that the FDA has higher standards than the offered alternatives - we can't lower standards just to encourage new entrants. But it IS a regulatory failure when the FDA doesn't communicate with the FTC such that unnatural monopolies aren't controlled for, or that the FDA/FTC isn't communicating to the pharma industry that new entrants are required in order to prevent such monopolies from occurring. The FTC should be more "cross-border" effective with the government's own agencies.