Valley VCs Sit on Cash, Forcing Startups to Dial Back Ambition

Re:Valley VCs Sit on Cash, Forcing Startups to Dial Back Amb... by seivan on Thursday March 10, 2016 @01:16AM (#11257613)

Those sources say more about your credibility than they do about Ubers. I think Uber actually relies on people like yourself, you have to understand that it's slowly harming your validity more than theirs.

To give you a comparison it's like those conspiracy theorists back in the days who claimed NSA was snooping on everyone and then later claimed the president is an Alien from planet Xenu.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Valley VCs Sit on Cash, Forcing Startups to Dial Back Amb... by tarsinge on Thursday March 10, 2016 @01:50AM (#11257693)

This is ad hominem, anything substantial about the content of the sources?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Valley VCs Sit on Cash, Forcing Startups to Dial Back Amb... by seivan on Thursday March 10, 2016 @03:21AM (#11257914)

You mean apart from their financial and personal incentives? No, not much else. I'm sorry, at some part you draw a line. My line is disparaging the clock that's not even right twice a day isn't considered ad hominem.

Same reason my source about racial discrimination isn't Stormfront, and my source about startups isn't Vox.

Also I wouldn't take what Breitbart has to say about sexist issues at face value either. I'm expecting you to be able to learn that soon enough, I mean you'd give me the same treatment if I shoved a bunch of Daily Mail articles at you. And rightly so.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Valley VCs Sit on Cash, Forcing Startups to Dial Back Amb... by tarsinge on Thursday March 10, 2016 @04:17AM (#11258099)

I'd not give you the same treatment, I would discuss the facts (if there is any). For example, is the uber street campaign to destroy Lyft talked in the Gawker article [5] real or not ? (I have no context and no opinion on the issue, so I was genuinely interested)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Valley VCs Sit on Cash, Forcing Startups to Dial Back Amb... by ianstormtaylor on Thursday March 10, 2016 @11:26AM (#11260109)

Not sure why I'm bothering to respond, but here are the same stories from a bunch of other publications. My initial comment was just a quick Google search, so the originals and highest SEO'd articles win out. Feel free to accept whichever one you deem a "good enough" source:

[6]: http://www.latimes.com/local/abcarian/la-me-ra-self-inflicte...

[7]: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/18/uber-worst...

[8]: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/18/uber-exec-...

[9]: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/ubers-boys-club-wha...

[10]: http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-avions-de-chasse-promoti...

[11]: http://www.fastcompany.com/3037552/uber-cancels-sexist-hot-c...

[12]: http://www.newsweek.com/uber-taxi-e-hailing-riding-app-travi...

[13]: http://www.gq.com/story/uber-cab-confessions?currentPage=1

[14]: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/08/opinion/we-cant-trust-uber...

[15]: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/18/emil-michael-of-ube...

[16]: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/11/acting-like-jer...

[17]: http://www.alternet.org/7-evil-things-uber-did-2014-you-shou...

[18]: http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2014/12/uber-travis-kalanick-...

[19]: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/uber-scandals-timeline-michiga...

It's trivial to verify that a source has the right story, so once verified then conversations should shift from debating the accuracy of the source to the consequences of the story itself.

[ Parent | on HN ]