asdfasdfa11112

No, but I bet he could talk about the messy complexities of the Apple supply chain. Can technical CEOs do that?

My point isn't to get into a skills based dick measuring contest, but rather to point out that even at huge technology companies*, is being technically adept really a requirement for the job?

Another one for discussion: is Apple a "technology" company? I put forth that a company is defined by the most difficult problem they need to solve / continually solve in order to stay in business. That tells me Apple is more of a manufacturing/ marketing company than technology.

If the pool is still there, it gets reused. If not, a new one is created.

It should help with overhead, but not always. There's benefits to partial solutions sometimes, if you can avoid the side effects.

free with uberconf branding.

Most products I've seen are "good enough" and have trade-offs with their competition. Infrequently have I seen a product that's head and shoulders above.

So companies get the checkboxes in features, then when I'm deciding between the finalists, stuff like this is a tie-break.

In other words, company culture is a differentiator, especially in a commodity product market.

It's tricky to separate the negative effects of the drug itself from the negative effects of the legal / cultural / class-based context.

In the case where your device was compromised and used in a botnet attack, wouldn't you need to prove damages? I'm just curious what that argument would look like to a layperson.

I suspect the average person wouldn't get too riled up to hear that their internet connection was used to block someone's website, as long as they don't notice it in their service quality.

Another tangent -- do any sophisticated botnet systems throttle their connection during an attack to minimize impact on the device/network owner?

[edit - in case it's not clear, I'm admittedly ignorant about this kind of stuff, so I was just curious if anyone else can shed some light]

My best tip is to not try one thing to grow your startup. Try everything.

This means that you have to do things very, very cheaply. Think of each growth hack as a single tactic. Execute in < 10 hours of work. Push into the wild.

You cannot know what will work, before you try it. What worked for others won't necessarily work for you.

How do you live in a world where any one thing you do is 90% likely to fail? You do a lot of 'one things', very cheaply, and when one of them hits, you exploit it.

Growth is a process, one very much dependent on speed. Think in terms of a growth system, not growth tactic or hack.

(this is what I call a strategy)

I don't know much about how branding works at that scale. But I don't think it's very effective for small/medium companies, and can be quite a money sink.

In nearly every SMB branding exercise/project I've participated in, the need for a brand, and the benefits it provides, are entirely limited to the egos of the employees.

It is important, from a high level, that innovation occur in limited scale. That prevents bad things from cascading everything.

This is called a "moat". Build it for your company, it's a good thing for an entrepreneur.

To be significantly successful, you need to stop thinking this way. Start thinking about what benefits you & your company.

It may seem like contempt for the consumer, and perhaps it is. But it's also possible the consumer is irrational and you can benefit in the short and long term.

I work in marketing, and have seen scant evidence for the value of a "brand". It's mostly branding people making an argument that comic sans devalues our brand, whereas the data clearly shows it doesn't.

The "long term harm" argument is indistinguishable from "i know better than you and I want it this way." It may be true, but it's unprovable.

This is an interesting example of confirmation bias, specifically the Halo effect.

When you say "support", do you mean by giving him ad revenue from your page view? What if this author were espousing something you already believe in?

Personally, I find those other views different than my own. I still found this article entertaining and interesting.

This only holds true if the physical only identifies disease that have downside risk. More realistically, most early identification situations can greatly reduce the cost of future care, eg the overweight 40 y.o. who intervenes to avoid being the obese 60 yo.

It also ignores a number of other selection criteria and behavioral issues, which you are honest enough to note in your pretend for a moment intros.

However, people who proactively care for their health carry "upside risk" as well as downside, which your scenario does not account for.