neovi

There's a small chance something of the sort could happen, but there are some nice limitations included.

In the 90s, the companies were issuing to be publicly traded; which means retail investors were free to put their whole income into a stock if they wanted to. Here they're only allowed a percentage of their income depending on their income bracket (over $100,000k or under). There's also a 30% cap to sell, which is far better than selling the whole entire fridge.

I've been reading through the sections for the past hour, so not enough time to get the full context, and a few questions arose:

1. I see that companies using Rega will have to file with the SEC, but does that mean the registering companies will be private or public?

2. If registering companies have to disclose information and it is available on EDGAR, will it be on EDGAR as a reference to a hard copy or will it be available to view online?

3. Is it possible to see a list of companies actively seeking crowdfunding that are currently pursuing Rega exemption? Or is it considered a private offering?

There are more questions, but I think that's a good start to get out of the way for us.

I don't know the numbers, though it seems easier to find potential renters more easily in the city. It's about $1.4k with no long-term lease (using the cheapest room for Lower Pac Heights) which is about the same you would find for a single in SoCal (albeit with a contract lease).

So, potential residents have the benefits of like-minded roommates, tech-driven area, and no-contract housing.

Other cities could have better profit for the landowner to rent out, but it would only really share the no-contract perk.

Would it be better performance wise to get the Twitch.tv/YouTube/etc. summary of what they're showing and present that first, and if you're interested to click on the summary then you can load the video? Loading all of those videos at once is pretty heavy, at least for my mbp.

There's that, and there's also the type of investors.

Since retail investors can trade after-hours, we can assume that the people responsible for the drop are either professionals or retail, which allows for irrational selling.

Also, the stock market is a market. So there could be institutional investors shorting bad plays from the individual investors and aggressively selling the stock (since after-hours doesn't have as many traders, it's a good bet to short until market opens tomorrow).

The only factors I personally see to determine Facebook's return on investment/share price are 1. $ per user, 2. potential user growth combining Facebook & WhatsApp, 3. time; which all seem pretty lackluster for the amount paid in the acquisition.

I love these posts, ones that deal with understanding the investment side of startups. With that said, I hope you could reply because I'm an amateur in this field compared to you [quick google search] and would like to learn from this discussion.

- who are you going after here? In your post the people I see are the unsophisticated investors who go for emotion/speculation rather than business perspective. Those that say with their gut "I love this product, it's so influential, therefore it's worth $50/share" and do off-the-cuff calculations "Facebook is priced at X so Twitter is around X, too" instead of doing hard research. One can see how it's bad to have these kinds of people involved in a relatively small field (ie VC), but again, your headline is towards startups and not the investors just noted.

- don't startups stand to profit most from these valuations? The problem I see is in having the aforementioned investors. If we have people running around trying to get a slice of the pie, it looks like they'll pump-and-dump. They'll pump their cash into whatever startup seems to have a chance of opportunity and then walk out when it's profitable enough. Win/win, except that means the investors don't really care what the company is doing or up to, they just want to profit.

- with what I just mentioned, startups stand to profit because more opportunity is available. The downside I see is there being a higher chance of shallow investments. When investing in a company, you want to really understand it and know it, but with these valuations and profits, it seems the headline shouldn't be "Why Twitter's IPO is Bad for Startups" but "Why Twitter's IPO is Bad for Sophisticated Investments."

note: It's pretty difficult trying to write out thoughts on here, so hopefully I made some sense. If not, just ignore it as beginner's mind.

It's like logo design: there are specific types of branding that you keep in mind (abstract, wordmark, letterform..), they're like mental models. They aid you in the development of design, so it's not "is [it] too formulaic" but "does it serve its purpose?" Does the way it's designed benefit what it's meant to do?

A lot of landing pages look the way they look because it does what it needs to do: educate about the product. The uniqueness of the web design isn't in the layout but in the hierarchy and positioning of information within the common single page -> scroll down -> sign up.

Is it lazy? Depends on the situation. Is it beautiful? You could make it so, but it commonly isn't. Does it get the job done? Pretty much all the time. I see the same template, but I get different information.

I'm going to use your logo as an example of what design should be and why the author is on the right track.

Your logo looks good. Visually, it's fine...

But what's the point of having dual colored shapes? Why is there a circle behind the antennas? What does the robot represent? Why orange? If you showed the logo to someone, would they be able to think of a word that coincides with a goal/mission of your company? Why is it looking down? If you're looking to predict (keywords: future, time, ready, etc.) then why not make it look forward?

These are the types of questions that struck me first looking at the logo. It feels like there was more focus on how it looked than to what it represents. That's how Dribble designs feel.

They look good and they get the job done (i.e. you have a logo, a client gets a site, etc.), but when you combine functionality with design, that's a real home run.

Using logo design as the example, the first goal of the designer should be to understand the company. What does it want to do? Why does it exist? Like a person, you want to get to know it before you can label it. Once you have the part of what you want to symbolize, what you want to communicate, you can start sketching. Start trying to really capture the soul of the company and present it in an aesthetic and still functional way.

Having aesthetics without much focus on function, that's what I feel the author is categorizing Dribble designers as.

Having functionality without aesthetic, well, we'll use an automobile for that example. A functional without aesthetic car would be a garbage truck.

Having aesthetics and function, you get brands like Porsche, Apple, Lego, OXO...

Sorry for going on a rant using your logo :-)

Personally, I think there should be more focus on when he did it rather than the fact he did it. If he was at the office doing this, then I'd agree with you. If the workday was done, then I can see an hour of his personal time being fine.