eroo

Because foreign agents buying political ads violates US federal law

> Where was the outpouring of funding [...]

Build the thing that needs funding. Then, seek support and apply.

perspective: finished first year @ wharton mba and taking a year off before second year to do an ms in cs (background is quant but not super computational - I'm really enjoying diving deeper into the latter now though).

1) Only do the eMBA if you can get BIGCO to pay for it. Price is unreasonable because it's expected to be expensed to an employer and it is a serious time commitment. I don't think it'd be worth it unless BIGCO is invested in you enough to sponsor.

2) 11-12 year experience upon entry is late for full-time MBA (mean is 5, max is 13). The MBA won't give you the boost to executive management - no one hires fresh MBAs for exec roles. MBA or not, that'll only come from hustle.

3) No empirical data, but my working theory is f(work incredibly hard, be kind to people and foster both friendships and partnerships, always be seeking out opportunity)

Misc: the coursework can be really useful/fun depending on the program. For example, Wharton lets me do the coursework equivalent of a grad degree in statistics w/i the mba. Lastly, the ready access to such a diversity of smart, ambitious people mid-career is really cool.

Happy to chat further if you'd like or put you in touch with MBA or eMBA students/adcom folks.

Many economists are applied mathematicians and the microeconmics crowd is specifically focused on understanding consumer and firm behavior. This checks out.

Another great source of reading material: FiveBooks[0] interviews "experts" and asks them to recommend five good books for understanding their field.

E.g., this[1] interview with David Brooks from 2009 is a lot of the source material/ inspiration for his book.

[0] http://fivebooks.com

[1] http://fivebooks.com/interview/david-brooks-on-neuroscience/

~10 years in flight.

~20 times the speed of a bullet.

~5 billion kilometers away.

And there are pictures from this. What a feat.

Yesterday: "Twitter CEO Dick Costolo laughs off 'crazy' calls for his resignation"[0]

[0] (warning: auto-play video on page) http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/twitter-ceo-dick-costolo-laughs-off...

Devices in millions [2011,2014]: 0.2, 1.3, 4.5, 10.9

Revenue in millions [2011,2014[: 14.5, 76.4, 271.1, 745.4

Paid active users in millions [2011,2014]: NULL, 0.6, 2.6, 6.7

I realize they sell more than just pedometers, but their core product is a 3-axis accelerometer that calculates a dubious step count w/o really actionable insights. Imagine what this can be once there start to be useful applications/more of the data.

Click bait with misleading headline. A better headline would be "Comcast plans to roll out personal broadband service at a higher fraction of current business plans."

>"Comcast's new Internet service absolutely crushes Google's offering, with speeds twice as fast." It won't be symmetric like Fiber, so it's going to be (at best) 2x download and probably 1/x upload. This speed also only appears to be coming to Atlanta in the near future.

>"For those who don't live in Atlanta, Comcast plans to offer 1Gbps plans to almost all of its Internet subscribers in 2016." This is bigger news, though it's still quite far away and not only will this not "crush" Fiber, where available, but will be strictly worse since it isn't symmetric, features Comcast customer service, and will surely cost many times what Fiber does.

I would love to know how the conversation about setting up her email went. Does she tell someone and they say "I'm on it," and then no one follows up or audits the infrastructure? Or was the setup one of her people's decisions and she didn't really know/care?

I'd consider that a corner case. And even then, it is possible to get something out. With private investments, that just may not be true or involves high ad hoc transaction costs.

My original reply was intended to point out that what was the top article comment at the time completely missed the point. Cuban is arguing that severe liquidity restraints are bad, especially so for small time investors. For scenarios like you describe, public exchanges aren't perfect either, but they are very, very good at facilitating near-instantaneous liquidity and they strictly dominate the current set of private crowd funding vehicles.

Sure they can except in the most extreme corner cases. You an contrive situations in which it's difficult to sell stock on the NYSE or NASDAQ, but it's basically always quick and easy (e.g., you can move $100K of FB stock in seconds using your phone during just about any market hour and often even outside of them). That is definitely not true of private markets, at least at the moment.

This isn't an indictment of valuations being necessarily inflated more than they were in 1999. He's critiquing a new preference for private investments which are very, very difficult to liquidate. That lack of liquidity, combined with easier access to investments via crowd funding has the potential to crash very similarly to mortgage backed securities.

It's easy to get in and impossible to get out. If things start falling, investors are locked in for the whole ride down. That structure combined with a heady appetite for putting it in the first place primes the pump for a painful crash.

[edit for question] He implies the SEC is restricting mechanisms for adding liquidity to private/crowd funded investments. Any idea if he has a specific proposal in mind?

He isn't arguing firms are overvalued by a greater degree now relative to 1999. He's arguing that investments in private firms, which are far more popular now, are worse for small players due to their lack of liquidity.

If things start going south in a private investment, a share holder may not be able to exit even at a large loss.