eshrews
eshrews on Hacker News
Personally, I think this stuff is great. It eliminates a lot of extra communication regarding whether someone has received a piece of information or not.
That said, I wonder at what point is a post considered "seen".
Some of the issues that have come to light on HN have been genuine, but in this case I feel like this guy has spent more time complaining than he did participating in the contest... They scammed you out of what? 5, maybe 10, minutes of your time?
I read it as meaning the 196 million came from a combination of Sequoia Capital, General Catalyst Partners and Accel Partners, so I think they are still making money.
>But make no mistake: this is bad for Facebook. Sure some investors, Zuck and (maybe?) some employees made a few more dollars but Facebook doesn't need the money and neither do most of the investors. But that's incredibly shortsighted.
>Facebook's ability to retain and attract talent and make stock-based acquisitions is in large part determined by the health and outlook of their stock. If they'd IPOed for $20-25 and jumped to $30 then they would have a lot of momentum behind them.
Why do you think the momentum of their stock has an effect on facebook's ability to attract talent? That's certainly not something I'm looking at (future stock price, yes; current momentum, no). Facebook's stock performance thus far has not changed my view of the potential future success of the company, and I think anyone who has actually done their homework regarding the Facebook valuation would feel the same way.
Am I missing something? What exactly did Facebook do wrong? Seems like the bankers were the ones that made the mistakes when it comes to the facebook IPO. Facebook made out like a bandit. If the price tanks after IPO, it's not Facebook that is taking a hit, it is the institutional buyers that were suckered into overpaying...
Betting one's retirement on a single security seems like a bad strategy regardless of how successful it's likely to be. I'm hoping the title is just hyperbole.
I read the "methods" section of the study, and saw no reference to controlling for occupation nor socioeconomic status (as opposed to marital status, self-reported health, and other things that are listed).
However, I only read it briefly, so I may have missed something.
Read the article again, its not making the passwords case insensitive, merely allowing you to invert the case. i.e. if your password was "aSdf" neither "ASDF" nor "asdf" would work.
Did you even read the article?
His point isn't that parents should follow the box ratings, its that parents should be proactive in choosing the content that they expose their children to. Especially if they are going to complain about it later.
I'd never seen this picture before, so thank you. I'd imagined it differently before viewing. Seems more like a pale blue speck.
Yes, he confirms further down in the comments that this is a fictional story.
Well, they don't have much to differentiate do they?I don't think anyone chooses carriers based on the phone's bloatware (although maybe on the lack thereof), so I don't see why they need to differentiate at all.