techtivist's comments

Honestly, along with this recent news - Meta seems to be its most brazen phase since going public in 2012 https://www.adweek.com/media/whistleblower-alleges-meta-arti... (See the section Recovery from Apple’s privacy changes) Cambridge Analytica was perhaps more about incompetence than complicity. But the patterns now seem intentional, and reminiscent of its early days documented well in Steven Levy's book.

Surface Studio perhaps? ;)

I never thought I could move to a touch only phone because I do a lot of "proper" typing on my phone, which is why I stuck to my Blackberry until my first iPhone which was a 5 (yes that long). Which is to say, I don't think we will miss the tactile escape and function keys. And same goes for dedicated HDMI port and microsd card slot (seriously how often does one use the latter)

Remember when apple got rid of the floppy drive and then the disk drive? Do we still complain about those?

Headphone jack on iPhone is a different concern, since bluetooth headphones are still not as ubiquitous and having something else to charge a headache.

But none of these concerns (except for maybe the absence of Magsafe) is really a dealbreaker.

If this valuation is based on the "future potential" of GitHub, I would keep track of GitHub's data ownership policy. I wouldn't be surprised if all of a sudden GitHub decides it owns the commercial rights to all code hosted on GitHub, at least for the free plan ;)

There's a key mental difference between traveling for leisure and for business.

When you are holidaying, you are looking for those little experiences that make every trip unique, and living in someone's home definitely adds to that.

But when you are traveling for work, anything that's not work is distracting. So one seeks 'familiarity', and that's where the experience of just getting back to a hotel with no surprises waiting wins.

It's the same reason I chose Starbucks to work from whenever I am traveling. I know I'll get the same environment, same mediocre coffee and similar wifi. No surprises, so I can GSD.

You should reclassify this as Blockchain, and separate the application on currency (Bitcoin). The bigger fundraising events this year has been around the "Blockchain" technology while investors' appetite to startups focusing on Bitcoin as a currency has dwindled significantly.

I think we all agree with the same statement then :)

>> 2. It feels like nobody here actually read Adora Cheung's quotes about multiple lawsuits coinciding with investment timing. That is obviously the reason they shut the doors.

Everybody did. It seems like a convenient face-saving excuse. The company didn't grow fast enough. If the all the numbers were impressive enough, investors would've taken the risk, especially the ones that already had $40m in.

Winner will take all. Uber will be the Uber for X (for everything) and AirBnB (potentially) AirBnB for everything. Low margin markets are usually zero sum in the long-term.

I doubt they will do that for personal devices. I think they will have two tiers: personal and enterprise. Personal would essentially be bundled up with PCs for "free" to the end-users with money coming from the OEMs. They will then "upsell" the likes of Office for a subscription.

But I find the subscription concept interesting for enterprise customers who are already used to it. Bundle support services and extra add-ons tailored to enterprises in general or particular industry, could have a huge potential for them.

Just to add what have already been mentioned, Term Sheet by Dan Primack for all startup news, mainly around funding + other deals including PE. An aspiring VCs best friend https://fortune.com/newsletter/termsheet/

With such slim margins AWS and the larger cloud services industry of today will become what the airlines industry has become.

This reminded me of a great piece in the Atlantic a while ago looking at the cause: "Elite students with few marketable skills are perfect forms for financial firms to mold." http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/why-do-s...

I am curious to understand what it takes to move from SMBs to move upmarket. Any examples of companies that have made the successful transition without alienating its core SMB customers?

I am not sure if this is really "effective altruism". When I decided to leave a high paying job to start an education startup in order to pursue my passion to make a change through education, I got similar advice. I was told it would be more "effective" to keep my job and donate the money to education related charities instead. But I realized that as an software engineer, my skills could prove much more impactful, and directly so than the relatively meagre money I could donate. As they say money is cheap. I felt, and I still feel I could amplify my impact by using my skills rather than just throwing money at the problem.

Second, I wanted to be more aware and involved in the issues I wanted to contribute to, which I couldn't do unless I dove in. There are a lot of good organization out there that are making great impact, but there are equal number of "bad" ones that are perhaps having a negative impact or are not aligned to ones values. GiveWell and CharityNavigator can only go so far.

Ah! Hadn't heard about this. Professional programs usually don't offer need-based aid a lot, so this probably still doesn't go a long way. I was thinking more for undergrad programs, where need-based aid is much more common, and not too many students (none for internationals) qualify for gov grants, which might have similar provisions.

Only a handful do, the ones in top 10-20 academically and endowment wise. The university covered tuition, room and board, around $58k annually. I still worked 20 hours a week, to pay for other expenses, send back a little home and save a little.

I definitely hope to when I financially can. Just one year into post-grad startup life :)

But in the meantime I am trying in my own little way, by advising current students, interviewing applicants and also coaching students back home in similar position as I was by helping them with their applications and SATs

I am always conflicted about these. I was fortunate enough to get a full ride (all grants, no loans) to a top University, even as an international student. My parents couldn't afford to pay for my flight here, which the University did. In a way that has allowed me to take a riskier career trajectory by quitting a 6 figure starting salary at a top tech company after graduation within 3 months and starting a startup. So I am ever so grateful for policies like this.

But I wonder if universities should offer some sort of deferred payment (5 years after graduation for instance) to students instead (not a 3rd party loan). If you go to Stanford you are pretty much guaranteed a stable income when you graduate. Yes ,granted, a lot of alumni do donate without feeling the necessity to do so, but having such an option will help universities, perhaps more for those with smaller endowments "recover" some of the cost.

Universities could always make exceptions some time down the line on a case by case basis, depending on student's current income which will vary violently even for top universities, with some students deciding to work for a non-profit while others choosing a more lucrative job, just like income tax works.

Again, I am really not sure, just throwing it out there.

I hate to feed conspiracy theories, but with the focus on state sponsored cyber security threats, we completely forget that corporate sponsored threats are equally potent.

Every time there's an attack on intellectual property of Western companies, fingers are raised straight to state sponsored groups in China and Russia. It's bewildering to me that privately sponsored attacks are hardly considered seriously.

With the Sony attack we have been focusing on the movie, while the movie could've been just an excuse for an attack that was aimed to financially dismantle Sony, which it did.