If I had a no-paywall URL I'd give it. I love ft.com because it's harder hitting that many US publications in the same space. And here they are really onto to something.
Readit Newsdoonesbury commented on The threat to the empire of English: It is not Mandarin ... it's bullshit ft.com/content/d36eed7f-f... · Posted by u/doonesbury
doonesbury commented on How inevitable is the concept of numbers? writings.stephenwolfram.c... · Posted by u/perardi
It's inevitable.
doonesbury commented on Kunst Der Fuge Collection – Free Classical MIDI Files kunstderfuge.com/... · Posted by u/eternalban
Super nice. Thank you for posting.
On paper, Brett sounds intelligent, but what sort of person moves self and family to somewhere new without doing any research first?! PS .. I live in UK, not Texas.
Agree. And another thing: Brett talks too much.
"For my friends everything, for my enemies the law"An outstanding one-liner. Where/who's it from?
doonesbury commented on Burn the Fucking System to the Ground (2013) popehat.com/2013/12/23/bu... · Posted by u/mpweiher
I am happy to read to a piece which gives friendly fire to the left and the right. We need more of these.
My own tired example "half of the fraud" is fiscal management: one-half focus only on income (via raising taxes) and the others on cutting expenses. No successful family or company does fiscal management this way. It's both sides, and it's even deeper than that: usually we need to re-assess the priorities which underpin expenses and taxing strategies. And fix those too. Heck, the GOP has even given up on talking the talk. Not even that is around anymore.
Like other commenters here outrage isn't an answer. Yes, it's the present currency for talking heads on TV and crap talkers on the radio. Like a Woody Allen movie without the humor or intellect or pretense of trying, each side tries extract more outrage, more anger, and to guilt the other side into change. It's stupid. As one corporate owner put it (paraphrasing) Americans prefer to be entertained than to deal better with the truth. So we play into this.
Why outrage? Because we have no agency in the present. We gotta fix that.
MLK had two easy outs: give up beating a dead horse, and open a barber shop or preach. Or payback. He, thankfully, chose the middle course. The middle course in America will travel through both political parties re-examining their political planks, since without them, they are lobbying fodder.
I can narrow it down to a top 4, if that's permissible.
* The Man Who Was Thursday, by GK Chesterton
* The Oresteia, by Aeschylus
* Cyrano de Bergerac, by Edmond Rostand
* The Eye of the World, by Robert Jordan
Oresteia - Aeschylus: is great read!
doonesbury commented on Ask HN: Co-founder wants me to leave but won't entertain a buy out offer · Posted by u/fortydegrees
It sounds like you own 40% of something fairly valuable and now that it's 11 months into your contract other founder who needed your help is getting greedy and trying to push you out before you are owed anything.
You said it yourself, you've grown hugely, you're dominating SEO since you joined, and built loads of products. This is your 'partner' getting greedy after you've done a lot of hard work. It wouldn't have happened without you. Don't undersell yourself.
Your 40% is worth $400k based on that initial funding valuation, right? Assuming it's as successful as you seem to be implying, it is almost certainly worth more now.
Everyone is telling you to roll over but seriously, fuck them. This other toxic guy is the one who should be getting pushed out, not you.
The other investor ultimately has power in this situation, not you or him, so whoever convinces them that they are the person to go with gets the seat and gets to continue with the project.
If he has a good relationship there you're probably fucked, but results matter... and if you can prove you've done great stuff since joining and and have great plans for the future, he can be replaced.
To be clear: this guy has decided to blow up the project so he can get a bigger share, if it all fails now he can only blame himself.
Whatever the root reason this is now conflict over control. Therefore you need to know your legal contractual options and obligations and his plus whatever poison pills or repercussions for out of contract behavior. Who owns the IP is key. What is that? No need to necessarily write here but to bolster your resolve. Now if the contract allows bad actors without downside risk ... There are no good answers except experience. Watch out for attrition by tying you up on legal fees. But then call BS on him not having buyout proceeds. Finally, maybe you need to press him and not let him set the context. Saying no is but one play his side. You can put him in a box too All this assumes an adversarial process. Good luck to you.
doonesbury commented on SEC Approves NYSE’s Plan for New IPO Alternative wsj.com/articles/sec-appr... · Posted by u/pseudolus
"Investor groups, however, warned it could diminish their protections as the banks perform due diligence on the companies."
That's positively hilarious in light of some of the dogs that investment banks have knowingly foisted on the public.
Agree! Let's not think leather shoes and shirt cuffs is always better. There's a long running issue with fee-for-service giving what the client wants. Ok to be fair to banks they could easily be value add but only if they face stiffer down side on fees when fraud, bs, and bad evals happen earning indeed commanding those fees on the upside or average case. It's separating risk from reward that is the issue largely.