@pmarca Tweetstorms (Marc Andreessen) on Tweetstorm.io

1

@DanielleMorrill Tend to be (but not always) higher margin, lower growth, lower ambition, lower tech.
@DanielleMorrill Yep! Often straight DCF.
@DanielleMorrill Tend to be (but not always) higher margin, lower growth, lower ambition, lower tech.
Saw a @pmarca retweet, spent 90 mins watching Peter Thiel. Wrote this post. Twitter is meaningful. http://t.co/4OPpSrRCA5 — (RT @TomShakely)

3 days ago ago via Twitter

2

@patrickc It's not just 70 years of failure. It's 70 years of not even any real theoretical progress. Alan Turing would be flabbergasted.
@patrickc "And then magic happens" cranks my skepticism way up. That so rarely actually happens.
@patrickc In contrast, for example, there was a 150+ year theoretical run-up to the computer.
@patrickc Babbage and Lovelace understood how it would work even if they couldn't build it.
@patrickc The last thing I want to be is a tech skeptic :-). But I lose the plot when the handwaving starts, which Strong AI seems to spark.

4 days ago ago via Twitter

3

@patrickc I think computers will continue to evolve down the same kind of parallel path they've been evolving down for 70 years.
@patrickc I think they will just become increasingly powerful and sophisticated tools that we will use.
@patrickc I don't see any reason to believe there will suddenly be some jump where all of a sudden they are like super-human intelligence.
@patrickc Seventy years of AI research and we have yet to make a computer that does anything surprising at all.
@patrickc Put another way, I think computers complement humans, vs compete with humans, and that continues indefinitely.
@patrickc Or another way: There is no such thing as Strong AI, there is only increasingly and arbitrarily sophisticated Weak AI.

4 days ago ago via Twitter

4

@patrickc OK, #1, what are 7 billion free, empowered, connected people with net-connected supercomputers going to build by end of century?
@patrickc #2, What are our odds of staving off catastrophic global disaster over that time period, whether global warming, bioterror, etc.
@patrickc #3, When does breakthrough life extension technology arrive, and what impact will it have on society and economics?
Incumbents 'can' incrementally innovate, but will they have same level of commitment?BMW & Tesla. Via @sharmavivek10 http://t.co/s9SQE9C0cP — (RT @SuB8u)

4 days ago ago via Twitter

5

@dkimerling They had a comprehensive comparative analysis of all consumer Internet business models and all countries.
@dkimerling It turned out that between 2001 and 2008 there had been a ton of development of new net business models mostly outside the US.
@dkimerling Most US-based investors just missed it, too preoccupied with the US and too bearish and dismissive after the dot com crash.
@dkimerling Whereas DST could say, "For X business model with Y user base in Z country, expected revenue and profit is $A" with confidence.
@dkimerling And hence DST was bidding on Facebook based on a model that their US-based competition did not have.
@dkimerling And generally their US-based competition refused to even conceive that it was possible that DST had an information advantage.
One app I'd like to see is Bitcoin contracts automatically adjudicated and settled by the network. — (RT @cdixon)

4 days ago ago via Twitter

6

@tomstandage Arguably the early path dependence determines a lot more of the long-term outcome than we think...
@tomstandage ...e.g. by tilting expectations towards functionality best served by an open or closed approach depending on how it starts.
@tomstandage One might guess that if "search" and "social" had started open, the requirements would be different than we now experience.
@tomstandage E.g. expectations of what networks or information retrieval systems were, were very different pre TCP/IP and HTML respectively.
@tomstandage Centralized approach may not be able to satisfy requirements derived from decentralized assumptions and vice versa.
@tomstandage So maybe how it starts determines how it ends.

5 days ago ago via Twitter

7

@NickHanauer You're talking past my point, which is as follows: I grew up in ground zero of the voter base you're talking about.
@NickHanauer Rural Wisconsin; main industries dairy farming and light industry, highly exposed to all of the trends you discuss.
@NickHanauer What people in that world experience is that every time they pick up a newspaper or watch TV...
@NickHanauer There's some expert or academic or intellectual, typically from a coast, explaining why we're voting the wrong way.
@NickHanauer And in almost every case it comes across as patronizing and condescending, one step away from being called stupid.
@NickHanauer And then the experts are amazed, each time, why the farmers and light industrial workers and housewives don't vote as expected.
@NickHanauer This was, for example, a major contributing factor to why Nixon got elected not once but twice.
@NickHanauer And why Reagan was so loved throughout much of the middle of the country, and even George W Bush.
@NickHanauer So my point is, the attitude of "those voters are dumb and are voting wrong" is both unhelpful and likely to backfire.
@NickHanauer For some reason, even regular people in the middle of the country think they can figure out what's in their own interest.
@NickHanauer And telling them they aren't and can't is indeed patronizing and condescending.

6 days ago ago via Twitter

8

@princebhojwani I think that's increasingly what will happen as all of the user-centric logic moves into phone apps.
@princebhojwani Phone has better navigation & maps, your media, your calendar (travel destinations), voice & text messaging, etc. etc.
@princebhojwani More and more what's running on the phone is eating what used to run in the car (or never ran in the car).
@princebhojwani So does your car work well with your phone? Not sure people will buy cars that don't in the future.

6 days ago ago via Twitter

9

@MaryTrigiani @robreich That whole thing is hysterical!
@MaryTrigiani @robreich When I was in college, dominant critique: Students all bunch of unmotivated Gen-X slackers, will never do anything.
@MaryTrigiani @robreich Now, exact opposite: Students all bunch of overmotivated achievers, too focused on performance and results.
@MaryTrigiani @robreich Also Deresiewicz gives away the plot in Generation Sell: He doesn't like/trust business, except his own book sales.
@MaryTrigiani @robreich Entertaining for sure. I wish him luck with his grift :-).

1 week ago ago via Twitter

10

@Wolfson @joshk Two reasons why that isn't routinely what happens:
@Wolfson @joshk (1) Then we could only invest in a much smaller # of companies than we do now. The $ adds up across rounds!
@Wolfson @joshk (2) Risk of losing objectivity by being too emotionally close to the companies we're already in...
@Wolfson @joshk ...when you get close to these companies, it can be hard to tell "double down on winners" vs "good money after bad"...
@Wolfson @joshk ...and so having the external market validation of a new investor helps make sure we don't smoke our own exhaust too much.
@Wolfson @joshk Occasionally VCs will double down on their winners and keep them in-house (like Sequoia did with Whatsapp)...
@Wolfson @joshk ...but equally often that leads to the "good money after bad" effect and can cause a lot of damage to a portfolio.
@Wolfson @joshk None of this has anything to do with any specific company, of course. This is about portfolio management over time.
@Wolfson @joshk Had Airware not been able to raise new outside money from someone like KP, we certainly would have put more $ in :-).
@pmarca @amyjokim the literature of the opposition can be fertile ground for a thoughtful mind. — (RT @cmp_05)

1 week ago ago via Twitter

11

@zeynep Again, if you don't want machines taking care of old people, then demographics will solve that problem for you.
@zeynep Demographics suggests the core problem 50 years from now will be the opposite of the current concern: not enough working age people.
@zeynep ...relative to retirees. Let the working age get too high, ability to pay for welfare of the elderly comes into serious question.
@zeynep Again here, productivity growth has to be the answer, smaller % of working age people will need to produce a lot more for everyone.
@zeynep And productivity growth comes from... automation, which comes from... technology.

1 week ago ago via Twitter

12

@beowulf127 Yep, I don't understand why people think gov't officials can call markets any more than anyone else...
@beowulf127 ...and history shows they're just as bad at it as everyone else.
@beowulf127 ...and history shows they're just as bad at it as everyone else.
One week left! Annotate to win a signed chapter of @bhorowitz's book The Hard Thing About Hard Things! http://t.co/HFfg9mTgKs — (RT @newsgenius)

1 week ago ago via Twitter

13

@ferenstein The three benefits of the inbound flow of people we are getting from illegal immigration despite the illegality:
@ferenstein 1. Economic: Lowering average working age & increasing birth rate, helping long-run US fiscal outlook tremendously.
@ferenstein 2. Human capital: Amazingly motivated and energetic people who work incredibly hard once they get here, add to talent pool.
@ferenstein 3. Cultural: Continue to expand the diversity, vibrancy, and energy of American culture, as immigrants always have.
An entrepreneur today: "I came to this country with nothing. I have sacrificed a lot. I am building something to last. I will win." — (RT @bznotes)

2 weeks ago ago via Twitter

14

@ferenstein I do think that both legal and illegal immigration are big net positives for the US. Particularly illegal immigration right now.
@ferenstein I do think that both legal and illegal immigration are big net positives for the US. Particularly illegal immigration right now.
@ferenstein (I don't mean "illegal immigration" itself is good, I mean it's net plus we are getting those people despite the illegality.)
Helsinki's ambitious plan to make car ownership pointless in 10 years http://t.co/EiwHXYD1Ip via @guardian — (RT @benjridgway)

2 weeks ago ago via Twitter

15

1/Common thing one hears in US is "Political system broken; Founding Fathers never intended politics to be dominated by moneyed interests."
2/But in 1776, voting "restricted to property owners—most of whom are white male Protestants over the age of 21". http://t.co/x2AVaTBaEa
3/In 1789, George Washington was elected President. "Only 6% of the population can vote." http://t.co/PpX4aLQcM8
4/Not until 1856 was voting expanded even to all white men (eliminating property ownership requirement) -- http://t.co/PpX4aLQcM8
5/1868, voting extended to former slaves (at least in theory), but still explicitly defined as male.
6/Women could first vote starting in 1890 in Wyoming (!). In 1920, 19th Amendment passed, giving women right to vote throughout US.
6/Throughout late 1800s and early 1900s, lots of battles for and against rights of other groups e.g. Native Americans & immigrants to vote.
7/Of course, massive battles in the 1960's to extend practical right to vote to African-Americans; some battles continue to this day.
8/Not until 1971 (year I was born) did voting age get lowered to 18, despite 18-21 year olds being conscripted & sent to war throughout.
9/Founding Fathers arguably designed US system specifically to be dominated by moneyed interests, aka white male Protestant landowners.
10/We have far broader-based voting and political participation today than ever before, due to hard work by many activists over 200 years.
11/And we're still by no means perfect; lots of progress yet to be made. But we're leaps and bounds ahead of 50-100-150-200 years ago.
12/And no, I'm not watching the World Cup finals :-).

2 weeks ago ago via Twitter

16

@automin Also Kevin Kelly's blog archives are really good.
@automin George Gilder for sure, "Telecosm" and his newsletters if you can get them.
@automin Also Kevin Kelly's blog archives are really good.
.@pmarca OK the Seventh and LAST shelf on Amazon Listmania http://t.co/7Njqw48O4h (with a little joke at the end) :-) — (RT @MasterMarquette)

2 weeks ago ago via Twitter

17

@aaronlarue I think in practice it requires truly disruptive innovation in the Christensen definition.
@aaronlarue I think in practice it requires truly disruptive innovation in the Christensen definition.
@aaronlarue It took Microsoft to end the IBM monopoly, and it took Google and Apple to end the Microsoft monopoly.
@aaronlarue "Innovator's Dilemma" still the best book on the topic, if you haven't read it.

3 weeks ago ago via Twitter

18

@aaronlarue My personal view is that distinctions between needs and wants are almost entirely arbitrary.
@aaronlarue In a lot of ways, the story of human economic development is things starting as wants and becoming needs.
@aaronlarue So I doubt that's actually a useful framework to consider the other questions.
@aaronlarue On monopoly, I think Peter has an idealized view. All monopolies have the same slogan: "We don't care because we don't have to."
@aaronlarue You can absolutely count on a monopoly to prioritize retaining & strengthening the monopoly over everything else inc innovation.
@aaronlarue Legislation and regulation are not very useful for dealing with monopolies due to phenomenon of regulatory capture.

3 weeks ago ago via Twitter

19

@DanielleMorrill And when they do cross over into tech and start violating their own valuation rules, historically it's been a topping sign.
@DanielleMorrill They tend to do terribly on those investments and withdraw from the market entirely in short order.
@DanielleMorrill So of course that's an interesting lens to look at the current dynamic of TPG et al doing so much tech growth equity.
@DanielleMorrill "This time is different" argument in 3 parts: death/delay of IPOs, success in tech are bigger now, & trad PE returns down.

3 weeks ago ago via Twitter

20

@DanielleMorrill Traditional PE and growth equity firms can only invest on a basis of multiples of positive cash flow.
@DanielleMorrill Both because that's how they analyze everything and because they often put leverage on top of their equity.
@DanielleMorrill They cannot, and will not, impute intangible value that you can't see in the form of current positive cash flow.
@DanielleMorrill So they effectively cannot cross over into what you and I would consider "tech", where valuations exceed ~10x current CF.

3 weeks ago ago via Twitter

21

@BenedictEvans I'm not sure I believe that innovation moves in the sense of an unchangeable force.
@BenedictEvans I think more often companies in a given layer just stop innovating, but could start again.
@BenedictEvans As example, virtually everyone in late 90's believed innovation in Internet search was over, had moved to other layers.
@BenedictEvans As another example, virtually everyone in late 90's believed innovation in enterprise systems software was over -> VMWare.
@BenedictEvans I guess I think mostly that innovation is a choice. Not easy, but still a choice.

3 weeks ago ago via Twitter

22

@maheshsharma Sure, there are actually a few intersecting problems.
@maheshsharma First, often some significant % of early employees end up with too much stock, particularly the ones who don't work out.
@maheshsharma And then you have trouble both re-upping the ones you really want to keep as well as being generous enough with new people.
@maheshsharma Then morale issues because early people who aren't that good or working that hard make so much more money than later people.
@maheshsharma You can always solve with yet more stock, but then you're being punitive to your earliest investors who took the most risk.
@maheshsharma For the really successful companies, these can be tens of billions of dollars of mistakes.

3 weeks ago ago via Twitter

23

0/Ten + one ways to grievously damage your high-growth tech startup, and Silicon Valley in the process:
1/Only hire, and only train/motivate/incent your managers to hire -- don't optimize efficiency, don't do performance management, don't fire.
2/Founders, sell too much of your own personal stock too quickly, alienating your employees and questioning your long-term commitment.
3/Let private stock sales by employees get out of hand: create hit-and-run culture and take on burdens of being public before going public.
4/Dilute the s*** out of cap table: be sloppy & undisciplined w/stock grants to early employees, plant morale land mine for later employees.
5/Maximize absolute valuation of each growth round: make later rounds harder and harder to achieve, until you trigger disastrous down round.
6/Let non-SV investors suck you into terrible structural terms on growth rounds: guarantee massive trauma if anything goes slightly wrong.
7/Go public too soon, before you're a fortress, before you can withstand all the assaults: ending in stock price death spiral & train wreck.
8/Pour huge money into overly glorious new headquarters, signaling to employees "we've made it, we're amazing", then repeat two years later.
9/Confuse conference circuit & party scene with actual work. Encourage alcohol & drugs, party culture in company, value ballers over nerds.
10/Refuse to take HR seriously: allow terrible internal manager & employee behavior to catalyze into catastrophic ethical & legal crisis.
11/And the one that will actually kill you: Assume more cash is always available at higher & higher valuations, forever.

3 weeks ago ago via Twitter

24

@tummler10 @csuwildcat @KevBeirne I mean it's a philosophical question about how you think about how to measure quality of life.
@tummler10 @csuwildcat @KevBeirne e.g. How would you feel if absolute quality of life doubled for everyone...
@tummler10 @csuwildcat @KevBeirne e.g. How would you feel if absolute quality of life doubled for everyone...
@tummler10 @csuwildcat @KevBeirne ...but if income inequality also doubled at the same time? Good or bad?

3 weeks ago ago via Twitter

25

@stevecheney Later! In college.
@stevecheney BASIC and assembly through age 18.
@stevecheney BASIC and assembly through age 18.
Convinced most upper/lower GI diagnostics will be done via spatially aware ingestables and wireless telemetry within 10 years. — (RT @pkedrosky)

3 weeks ago ago via Twitter

26

1/One persistent canard from would-be SV critics is "Silicon Valley isn't building/funding the right things, aka solutions to big problems".
2/There are six logical problems with the false choice of "make trivial apps for 20-something SF hipsters" vs "do things that matter".
3/First, "make trivial apps" vs "do things that matter" are not actually in conflict-there's plenty of room and plenty of money to do both.
4/Second, it's often hard to tell which is which up front. Almost all big world-changers were dismissed by critics as trivial at first.
5/Third, observer bias: Only read consumer tech blogs, only go to consumer tech conferences, think SV only works on consumer tech.
6/Founders of non-consumer-tech startups routinely find same pundits mounting criticism have little interest in hearing about other domains.
7/This is exacerbated by SF-centric consumer tech party scene--other domains in SV don't have the same party culture, just nerds at work.
8/New arrivals to SV get sucked into SF party scene, and never make it to the South Bay industrial parks where everything else is happening.
9/Fourth, battling cynical critiques: Founders who articulate the big vision for changing the world get called arrogant and vainglorious.
10/Both criticisms leveled with no cognitive dissonance: Founders either not pursuing big ideas, or out of control egomaniacs if they are.
11/Fifth, subtext often that communication tech/apps in particular somehow aren't important or don't matter, vs energy, education, etc.
12/I think this is 100% incorrect: Communication tech/apps including Internet are the foundation for everything else we'll do for 100 years.
13/Why? Communication is the foundation of collaborative work, which is how all the important problems gets solved. People working together.
14/Sixth: Anyone who thinks SV can be doing more/better/different, come join us and participate in building new things, products, companies!
15/Jump in, the water's warm! SV draws talent from all over the world & all walks of life; nothing preventing any critic from contributing.
16/As my old boss Jim Barksdale used to say, "We have plenty of uniforms your size." Many opportunities to contribute & make a difference!
17/And, of course, tech startup ecosystem now expanding worldwide. Opportunities to contribute from anywhere abound, linked via Internet.

3 weeks ago ago via Twitter

27

1/"Halt And Catch Fire" takes flak from critics for being melodramatic--yet captures real emotional intensity of actual tech startups well.
2/Joe, Cameron, Gordon, Bos all accurate archetypes. I know dozens of each. Must come together to do great things. Can't alone.
3/Tonight's episode best since pilot -- without spoiling, key is both Cameron and Gordon are right. Real tension at heart of many startups.
4/Again without spoiling, final question asked by Cameron's new program still at the heart of our industry 30 years later.
5/Show also shows why founders often don't start 2nd company, or sometimes even talk to former partners after company is over. Too intense.
6/Finally, show is dead on about overwhelming market power of IBM at that time. Seeds of collapse had already been planted but no one knew.

3 weeks ago ago via Twitter

28

1/Cleaned-up tweetstorm on "the reverse rules of new technology" -- expressed ironically! -- and labeled as such :-).
2/One thing we know about new gadgets: They can be judged based on their first versions since that's what they'll look like forever. #irony
3/Each new technology arrives into the world w/the perfect universal use case pre-identified. If it doesn't, it flops & dies forever. #irony
4/Any new technology needs immediate widespread cultural acceptance. If it's just used by nerds early on, it'll never go mainstream. #irony
5/New technology products must be immediately cash-flow profitable; otherwise you have clear evidence idea was stupid from the start. #irony
6/Any new tech product that isn't immediately affordable for everyone will never decline in price & will just exacerbate inequality. #irony
7/Any new tech must immediately provide immense utility to the world or shame on you for not "solving big problems". #irony HT @commagere

3 weeks ago ago via Twitter

29

@dsquareddigest Yes, who it's coming from and when it was sent.
@dsquareddigest Technically the "Yo" part is irrelevant. It's a message that's 100% context.
@dsquareddigest Added benefits: One click send, much safer to use in car, no need to remember anything except context.
@dsquareddigest Also ideally suited for new generation smart watches coming to market soon (small screens, simple input).

1 month ago ago via Twitter

30

@HeatherDJohn Oh, yes.
@HeatherDJohn Possible selection bias, though. Generally any entrepreneur who pitches a full partnership of a VC firm...
@HeatherDJohn ...has run a considerable gauntlet to get there -- female and male. So they all tend to be tough determined & pretty fearless.
The Man Making Silicon Valley Go Crazy for Hardware | Design | WIRED http://t.co/FxwfX9VckX "Mr. China" @liamcasey doing his thing. — (RT @RonP)

1 month ago ago via Twitter

31

@Noahpinion Yet Democrats are holding high-skilled immigration hostage.
@Noahpinion Yet Democrats are holding high-skilled immigration hostage.
@Noahpinion Nobody on the side of principle in this one. All politics.
Is China getting ready for a bloody crackdown on Hong Kong protesters? http://t.co/2nNqdcY3w7 — (RT @Noahpinion)

1 month ago ago via Twitter

32

"I've never seen so many people before." Man looking on from Pacific Place as marchers still go strong at 8 #july1hk http://t.co/zT9Fu2zHbe — (RT @jchristychoi)
"I've never seen so many people before." Man looking on from Pacific Place as marchers still go strong at 8 #july1hk http://t.co/zT9Fu2zHbe — (RT @jchristychoi)
Tens of thousands of pro-democracy protesters marching in Hong Kong, angry w/ Beijing http://t.co/9jnkfh7ceS #july1hk http://t.co/qAX8BuvSqg — (RT @moneyries)
Streets in Wan Chai still crowded with protesters singing and marching #hk71 #july1hk http://t.co/3Qormm1ki6 — (RT @AgnesBun)

1 month ago ago via Twitter

33

1/Gallup surveys on confidence in institutions are endlessly interesting: http://t.co/qHx0Ce6YCz
2/High-trust US institutions (above or near 50%): Military, small business, police, churches.
3/Low-trust US institutions: Medical system, Supreme Court, Presidency, public schools, banks.
4/Almost-no-trust US institutions (<25%): Justice system, newspapers, organized labor, big business, Internet news, TV news, Congress.
5/Conventional glass-half-empty argument is terrible erosion of trust & competency in key institutions, decline & fall of the United States.
6/Alternate glass-half-full argument: Large centralized institutions *shouldn't* be highly trusted: monopolies/oligopolies let people down.
7/Alternate arg cont'd: Lack of trust in institutions motivates construction of competitive alternatives better attuned to we the people.
8/Alternate arg cont'd: Large centralized institutions were 20th century; flexible, responsive, accountable organizations for 21st century.
9/I don't think the answers are at all straightforward. But I think this debate is going to inform a lot of next 30 years of politics.

1 month ago ago via Twitter

34

@asaxena "VC returns" is a flawed concept. VC is not an asset class, it's a boutique industry. Small % of investors generate most profits.
@asaxena The question I pose is not about all startups. It's about the top startups that in the past would have IPO'd much quicker.
@asaxena We have a choice, those top startups can either IPO fast at low valuations like Microsoft, Oracle, and Amazon did...
@asaxena ...or they can IPO later at high valuations like Facebook did. Big difference for public market returns over time.
@asaxena The point people keep missing is that I'm arguing against my own personal self-interest on this.
@asaxena As a private investor with access to lots of private LP funding, I make more money if the winners stay private for much longer.
@asaxena But on the other hand, I think it would healthier for society if the gains from the winners were more broadly distributed.
@asaxena But to be clear, with my own self-interest in mind, I'm just fine the way things are. Happy to take all the gains on private side.

1 month ago ago via Twitter

35

@abrams Whatever you think about them, they were both billion-$ revenue companies when they went out.
@abrams Whatever you think about them, they were both billion-$ revenue companies when they went out.
@abrams You can still take billion-$ revenue companies public, no question :-).
@pmarca @BenedictEvans thought you two would enjoy this analysis of homescreen apps http://t.co/beGckW1rmC — (RT @RichBTIG)

1 month ago ago via Twitter

36

@BenedictEvans @cdixon A year ago Facebook was being accused of making you feel unhappy by showing you too many *happy* things...
@BenedictEvans @cdixon http://t.co/xQgQFIMsYv
@BenedictEvans @cdixon Faced with that question, what would you do? Show more sad things? Show more happy things? Or study the topic?
This honesty from @DanielleMorrill on fundraising is profound - must read for every investor and entrepreneur: https://t.co/Tz05E8u5Tt — (RT @stevecheney)

1 month ago ago via Twitter

37

@lagoaThiago I was never at SGI -- although my partner @bhorowitz was.
@lagoaThiago @bhorowitz Amazing how much has changed since then -- but also how much hasn't.
@lagoaThiago @bhorowitz Amazing how much has changed since then -- but also how much hasn't.
@lagoaThiago @bhorowitz Including irony that Google is now in old SGI buildings -- both employing many of industry's best engineers!

1 month ago ago via Twitter

38

@EpicureanDeal That's my point. "White and Asian" = a large % of the United Nations. The claim is specious.
@EpicureanDeal If there was active discrimination or "mirrortocracy" going on, it would be all white.
@EpicureanDeal The reality is exactly the opposite. All of these companies are desperate for talent. They'll take anyone who can contribute.
@EpicureanDeal We wish there were purple, green, and orange people to hire.

1 month ago ago via Twitter

39

Helpful hint: Whenever you watch TV, read a book, open a newspaper, or talk to another person, someone's manipulating your emotions!
Helpful hint: Whenever you watch TV, read a book, open a newspaper, or talk to another person, someone's manipulating your emotions!
@pmarca And there are excellent odds they're measuring the results and tuning their manipulation accordingly...
Net Neutrality dilemma: we want carriers to be utilities *and* expect massive innovation in broadband #TANSTAAFL http://t.co/yOjbd56vYH — (RT @fmbutt)

1 month ago ago via Twitter

40

Pretty clear data across presentations at #premoney that economic value is being captured in private markets. All the action is private. — (RT @semil)
Awesome #premoney presentation on shifts in capital markets by @skupor. IMO he's a16z's secret weapon. — (RT @semil)
Scott Kupor of Andreessen Horowitz says "This is not a bubble." #premoney http://t.co/36UhN4ymkH — (RT @Mattermark)
Scott Kupor of Andreessen Horowitz says "This is not a bubble." #premoney http://t.co/36UhN4ymkH — (RT @Mattermark)

1 month ago ago via Twitter

41

1/New study on interplay between diversity and success in VC investing in startups -- really interesting -- http://t.co/Tj4WBKK9YQ
2/"The more [ethnic and educational] affinity there is between two VCs investing in a firm, the less likely the firm will succeed." !!
3/"VCs have strong tendency to team w/other VCs whose ethnic & educational backgrounds are similar... turns out to be bad for business."
4/"Two VCs from same undergraduate school 34.4 percent more likely to collaborate...and increased by 39.2 percent if same ethnicity."
5/"Odds of success of invested company down 17% if two VCs worked at same company; -19% same undergrad school; -20% same ethnicity."
6/"The lack of success among similar investors seemed to lie in the decisions that *followed* the investment...due to 'groupthink'."
7/Side note: Last names of the three researchers who wrote the paper -- Gompers, Xuan and Mukharlyamov :-).

1 month ago ago via Twitter

42

@fmanjoo @cdixon I don't think that's the only factor, but I bet it contributed.
@fmanjoo @cdixon Recall that patent trolling only became an institutional investment asset class not that long ago.
@fmanjoo @cdixon Lawsuits are their revenue model, so I bet this correlates for their need to give their investors tangible returns.
Amazing color (yes, color!) photos from World War I from @TIME: http://t.co/wyGHEbFfg9

1 month ago ago via Twitter

43

@interfluidity My best guess: Is it truly in service of making the best product?
@interfluidity My partners and I think Christensen theory on disruption & interplay of horizontal & vertical structures needs a new part...
@interfluidity His analysis of how products go from integrated to horizontally disaggregated makes total sense, however...
@interfluidity At some point the horizontally disaggregated industry (always? sometimes?) loses the plot & makes crappy final products.
@interfluidity That's when a rebundled superior product can win, against all expert predictions. Customers do care & will change.
@interfluidity Apple is the ultimate case study. EVERY outside observer said they had to unbundle when Steve decided to rebundle.
@interfluidity How much was his genius vs how much was PC industry products had unacceptably degraded over its 20 year run? Who can tell?

1 month ago ago via Twitter

44

1/Late night tweetstorm addendum to earlier series on unbundling (https://t.co/ecgBveoiMj) and rebundling (https://t.co/0fw9alDKh3)...
2/Younger followers asked me to expand on DEC/Sun/Microsoft unbundling: older history, therefore useful to study as precedent for our time.
3/Once upon a time (1950s-1960s), businesses mostly bought computers from IBM, & IBM also bundled in all the software & services you'd need.
4/IBM bundled offerings were extremely expensive, while demand for computers spread to departments & smaller businesses who had less $.
5/So DEC unbundled the computer itself from the total bundle & sold it for less $ to customers who could then write their own software.
6/But a DEC computer itself was a bundle of proprietary components: VAX hardware, VMS operating system, RDB database, etc.
7/In the 80's, Sun came along & sold a similar power computer to DEC's for 1/4 the cost w/unbundled components: Unix OS + Motorola chips.
8/DEC responded by going upmarket & becoming more like IBM; Sun & other Unix workstation vendors chewed through their market + grew it more.
9/Critical point: At point when DEC started to tip over, its integrated offering was as close to perfect as our industry will ever see.
10/Ask people who were working then (like me) and they'll tell you to this day that they miss VAX/VMS & how productive they could be on it.
11/Meanwhile Microsoft & Intel came along and fully implemented the unbundled low-cost computer, first PCs and then Windows-based servers.
12/Sun responded to Microsoft/Intel by rebundling: Rebuilding itself in DEC's image with Sparc chip, Solaris OS -- proprietary HW+SW stack.
13/Again, Sun got close to perfection as an integrated system when unbundled Microsoft+Intel & Linux+Intel went broad & forced sale of co.
14/Picking up thread with Microsoft: Microsoft has spent last 15 years rebundling, rebuilding itself in DEC's image much like Sun. Now + HW!
15/Once again, bundled Microsoft stack very close to perfect just as it comes under attack from next unbundling wave: mobile + cloud.
16/Fascinating twist: Under new leadership, Microsoft 2014 now committed to unbundling -- full app + cloud support for iOS, Android, Linux!
17/Microsoft taking new unbundling strategy offensively vs new titans who are bundling as fast as possible! Apple, Google, Amazon, Oracle.
18/The point? I don't know much about what our industry will look like in 50 years, but I'm quite confident these same dynamics will apply.

1 month ago ago via Twitter

45

1/The flip side of unbundling: Later on, the unbundlers tend to try to rebundle in the image of whatever they unbundled.
2/So Yahoo adds an ISP (https://t.co/JrlrVoY9Vo), and Google adds email/IM/sports-scores/stock-quotes.
3/Twitter changes its user profile page to look more like Facebook :-).
4/Sun unbundled DEC with commodity components, then re-bundled into a proprietary computing stack just like DEC w/Solaris, Sparc, etc.
5/Microsoft likewise unbundled DEC minicomputers w/PC OS + tools, then rebundled into DEC-like integrated stack now including hardware (!).
6/Paraphrasing Harvey Dent: "You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the company you first competed with."
7/And then sometimes the rebundlers realize what they're doing and try to reverse course. E.g. Microsoft building apps for iOS & Android.
8/And thus the cycle of life repeats with yet more unbundling :-).

1 month ago ago via Twitter

46

1/A story of unbundling in the tech industry: 20 years of consumer Internet evolution -- http://t.co/qUCWjc4wkF
2/One upon a time there was AOL, which was a completely integrated Internet access/information/communication service.
3/Then Yahoo came along and unbundled the information/communication parts like email/IM/sports-scores/stock-quotes from the access service.
4/One of the things you could do on Yahoo was search, then Google came along and unbundled that.
5/You can search for anything on Google, including people; Facebook came along with a much better way to just search for people.
6/Three things you can do on Facebook are messaging, photo sharing, and status updates; therefore Whatsapp, Instagram, and Twitter.
7/And yes, Yo unbundles the creation & existence of a message from the contents of a message, unbundling Whatsapp and Twitter :-).
8/Ev Williams (@ev) is the modern genius of this concept--playing out in our industry continuously since the 1950's. http://t.co/p6DzO6tGbL
9/The part people often miss is that you can get extremely powerful second/third order effects at each step with his pattern.
10/The entrepreneurs generally have a pretty good sense of this when they're doing it, but it doesn't become clear to others until later.
11/This is a pattern what we love to fund: unbundle X from Y, but then use the liberation of X as leverage to do amazing new things with X.
12/And the howls of press and analyst outrage at the apparent stupidity of each unbundling are very helpful for keeping valuations down :-).

1 month ago ago via Twitter

47

@paulbaumgart Also in that world there's no need for fractional private ownership. Hedge funds and pension funds can own everything...
@paulbaumgart ...relieving individuals of all carrying costs. Consumer lifestyle all opex no capex.
@paulbaumgart With prospect for amazing scale economics on maintenance and physical resource allocation.
Smart Cities should be social cities, where technology enables social interaction, not filters it. Blog here http://t.co/IJY4QY1SBH — (RT @kieronkirkland)

1 month ago ago via Twitter

48

1/1950's + 1960's + 1970's + 1980's + early 1990's view of computer technology = "Nerds!"
2/Late 1990's view of computer technology = "Everyone will get rich!"
3/2001's view of computer technology = "The nerds screwed us!"
4/2003's view of computer technology = "We knew those nerds were wrong all along!"
5/2009's view of computer technology = "Those nerds are completely out of ideas!"
6/2013's view of computer technology = "Those nerds and all their crazy ideas are going to destroy all the jobs!"
7/And now = "Those nerds are completely out of ideas again, and now they're having sex too!" http://t.co/Du7pMU6seU http://t.co/GF5L2qXwj3
8/Stay tuned for more updates from our favorite show, "As The Nerds Turn" :-).

1 month ago ago via Twitter

49

1/Equally big news of the day: our co @Quirky spinning out "Internet of things" platform Wink as standalone company! http://t.co/knfAGTKgPi
2/@Quirky with its partners including GE and Home Depot is reinventing American manufacturing of consumer products. http://t.co/knfAGTKgPi
3/Now Wink will provide a standard software layer across all of Quirky's products plus many others including GE, Honeywell, and Philips.
4/Quirky partner Home Depot "now sells 600 smart-home products, six times as many as it did two years ago." The revolution is happening now.
5/Important to note this isn't just about toys for rich people; it's about energy conservation, water conservation, security, and safety.

1 month ago ago via Twitter

50

1/Today we're thrilled to be able to talk about newest investment--Tanium. We're investing $90M; first VC investment since co founded 2007.
2/Collectively partners at @a16z have maybe 200 years experience in systems management; Tanium is a breakthrough like we've never seen.
3/Tanium --> people responsible for large networks of computers & software, what Google --> people on the Internet. Don't say that lightly.
4/Company's operating under radar, but its customers could not be more enthusiastic. Product must be seen to be believed. It's amazing.
5/Tanium is real-time query *and* control--100s of Ks of computers & virtual machines--with natural language queries. http://t.co/q4uYZl4qaX
6/We are thrilled to be working with genius founders David & Orion Hindawi and their colleagues. Masters of the art & science of computing.

1 month ago ago via Twitter

51

1/We are very proud of portfolio company @udacity for going straight after opening up higher ed to far more people: http://t.co/QiPJoy5JTx
2/"$200 a month, teach anyone basic programming skills for entry-level position at AT&T as a data analyst, iOS applications designer, etc."
3/"Harnessing the web to provide effective schooling to the many young Americans for whom college has become a distant, unaffordable dream."
4/"'We are trying to widen the pipeline,' said AT&T's Charlene Lake. 'This is designed by business for specific skills needed in business.'"
5/"Education still offers children from disadvantaged families their best chance at climbing the ladder of success."
6/"One reason for enormous payoff from college degree (2x payoff vs 1979) is that too few young Americans ever earn one."
7/"Peter Lubbers, who runs MOOC developer training for Google says, 'We want all the techniques we know about to get out to the market.'"
8/"The 'NanoDegree' offers a set of skills that can be clearly applied to a job--a chunk of knowledge & immediate motivation to acquire it."
9/"Could offer a plausible path to young men/women who may not have time, money or skill to make it through 4-year or even 2-year degree."
10/"US students in bottom quarter of income distribution: college graduation rates only 9%, from 5% 20 years ago." Not *nearly* high enough.

1 month ago ago via Twitter

52

On MOOCs

1/We are very proud of portfolio company @udacity for going straight after opening up higher ed to far more people: http://t.co/QiPJoy5JTx
2/"$200 a month, teach anyone basic programming skills for entry-level position at AT&T as a data analyst, iOS applications designer, etc."
3/"Harnessing the web to provide effective schooling to the many young Americans for whom college has become a distant, unaffordable dream."
4/"'We are trying to widen the pipeline,' said AT&T's Charlene Lake. 'This is designed by business for specific skills needed in business.'"
5/"Education still offers children from disadvantaged families their best chance at climbing the ladder of success."
6/"One reason for enormous payoff from college degree (2x payoff vs 1979) is that too few young Americans ever earn one."
7/"Peter Lubbers, who runs MOOC developer training for Google says, 'We want all the techniques we know about to get out to the market.'"
8/"The 'NanoDegree' offers a set of skills that can be clearly applied to a job--a chunk of knowledge & immediate motivation to acquire it."

1 month ago ago via Twitter

53

@samgustin In the meantime, both university research and venture-capital-backed startups have expanded enormously, for the better.
@samgustin In total, a lot more research & development is happening now vs 40 years ago, and a lot of it coming to market much faster.
@samgustin So I don't quite get what people think we're missing that we should try to recover. More hyper-profitable monopolies?
@samgustin Me, I'd rather see a dramatic expansion in federal R&D funding via NSF and NIH, channelled into research universities.

1 month ago ago via Twitter

54

@samgustin Which is one reason so many ideas developed in the megacorp research arms never made it into products, then and now.
@samgustin In the meantime, both university research and venture-capital-backed startups have expanded enormously, for the better.
@samgustin In total, a lot more research & development is happening now vs 40 years ago, and a lot of it coming to market much faster.
@samgustin So I don't quite get what people think we're missing that we should try to recover. More hyper-profitable monopolies?
@samgustin Me, I'd rather see a dramatic expansion in federal R&D funding via NSF and NIH, channelled into research universities.

1 month ago ago via Twitter

55

@samgustin And they usually had an odd relationship with the mothership, which wanted as little change as possible to preserve monopoly.
@samgustin Which is one reason so many ideas developed in the megacorp research arms never made it into products, then and now.
@samgustin In the meantime, both university research and venture-capital-backed startups have expanded enormously, for the better.
@samgustin In total, a lot more research & development is happening now vs 40 years ago, and a lot of it coming to market much faster.
@samgustin So I don't quite get what people think we're missing that we should try to recover. More hyper-profitable monopolies?
@samgustin Me, I'd rather see a dramatic expansion in federal R&D funding via NSF and NIH, channelled into research universities.

1 month ago ago via Twitter

56

@samgustin ...and hyper-profitable monopolies are not normally the kind of thing that people get nostalgic about.
@samgustin And they usually had an odd relationship with the mothership, which wanted as little change as possible to preserve monopoly.
@samgustin Which is one reason so many ideas developed in the megacorp research arms never made it into products, then and now.
@samgustin In the meantime, both university research and venture-capital-backed startups have expanded enormously, for the better.
@samgustin In total, a lot more research & development is happening now vs 40 years ago, and a lot of it coming to market much faster.
@samgustin So I don't quite get what people think we're missing that we should try to recover. More hyper-profitable monopolies?
@samgustin Me, I'd rather see a dramatic expansion in federal R&D funding via NSF and NIH, channelled into research universities.

1 month ago ago via Twitter

57

@samgustin However, it's surprising people get nostalgic about them, in that they only existed within hyper-profitable monopolies.
@samgustin ...and hyper-profitable monopolies are not normally the kind of thing that people get nostalgic about.
@samgustin And they usually had an odd relationship with the mothership, which wanted as little change as possible to preserve monopoly.
@samgustin Which is one reason so many ideas developed in the megacorp research arms never made it into products, then and now.
@samgustin In the meantime, both university research and venture-capital-backed startups have expanded enormously, for the better.
@samgustin In total, a lot more research & development is happening now vs 40 years ago, and a lot of it coming to market much faster.
@samgustin So I don't quite get what people think we're missing that we should try to recover. More hyper-profitable monopolies?
@samgustin Me, I'd rather see a dramatic expansion in federal R&D funding via NSF and NIH, channelled into research universities.

1 month ago ago via Twitter

58

@samgustin I'm all in favor of more research, so only good things to say about them historically and now.
@samgustin However, it's surprising people get nostalgic about them, in that they only existed within hyper-profitable monopolies.
@samgustin ...and hyper-profitable monopolies are not normally the kind of thing that people get nostalgic about.
@samgustin And they usually had an odd relationship with the mothership, which wanted as little change as possible to preserve monopoly.
@samgustin Which is one reason so many ideas developed in the megacorp research arms never made it into products, then and now.
@samgustin In the meantime, both university research and venture-capital-backed startups have expanded enormously, for the better.
@samgustin In total, a lot more research & development is happening now vs 40 years ago, and a lot of it coming to market much faster.
@samgustin So I don't quite get what people think we're missing that we should try to recover. More hyper-profitable monopolies?
@samgustin Me, I'd rather see a dramatic expansion in federal R&D funding via NSF and NIH, channelled into research universities.

1 month ago ago via Twitter

59

1/The thing I find most interesting about Marx is how much he hated the poor and dispossessed: http://t.co/A3Y9U4DsEB
2/Lumpenproletariat: "Layer of working class lost to useful production, of no use to the struggle, an impediment to the classless society."
3/"Translated as slum workers or the mob...class of outcast, degenerated and submerged elements within population of industrial centers."
4/"Beggars, prostitutes, gangsters, racketeers, swindlers, petty criminals, tramps, chronic unemployed or unemployables..."
5/"Declassed, degraded or degenerated elements...innumerable young people also, who cannot find an opportunity to [become] producers."

1 month ago ago via Twitter

60

1/A personal meditation on how we learn, and how how we learn is changing radically for the better due to new technology...
2/1989: I go to college & want to learn about how "real" computers work--VMS & Unix--foundation of all today's phones/tablets/PCs/servers.
3/Only way: Get a job at a computer lab that owned such a computer; get access to the literal wall of paper manuals-- http://t.co/sGgCIV3jMn
4/Read those cover to cover; then what? Scientific/technical journals. Only with access to research university library. Until...
5/1990: Co-op job at IBM; discovered mainframe (!) search engine of science/tech journals; in 3 days, get printed copies via office mail!
6/Posed major dilemma: How many papers could the intern request before Big Blue would fire his ***? Tested it into the hundreds.
7/All other relevant info was on the Internet--IETF RFC's, free software code--but who had access to the Internet in 1990? Not many.
8/25 years later: Every smartphone is equiv of million-$ Unix supercomputer from that time, plus *all* that info is freely available online.
9/Science/tech journals still not completely free, but even those walls falling fast now due to Google Scholar/PDF searches/policy reform.
10/Re journals: Aaron Swartz doc is out; powerful memory of freedom of information hero & warrior for progress. http://t.co/Vh9G9FuBeZ
11/Why does this matter? Info is foundation of progress; info about computers is basis of key tool for progress as software eats world.
12/Means of production being put in hands of the masses for first time in human history. I'm broken record on this, but: profound change.
@pmarca one example of this is how mobile devices lead to new p2p networks which lead to new employment channels in a new labor market. — (RT @semil)

1 month ago ago via Twitter

61

1/I am super-proud of my friends at Google and their new push to help get more girls into coding: "The things you love are #MadewithCode"!
2/From @SusanWojcicki: "Fewer than one percent of high school girls express interest in majoring in computer science....hits home for me."
3/"Along with several partners, Google is launching Made with Code, an initiative to inspire girls to code." http://t.co/ewOIysOzW0
4/Including "commitment of $50 million to support programs that can help get more females into computer science." !! http://t.co/ewOIysOzW0
5/"Nowadays, coding isn’t just a skill useful for working at a tech company; engineering isn’t just for engineers..."
6/"No matter what a girl dreams of doing, learning how to code will help her get there. Their future — our future — is made with code."
@pmarca love this @FastCompany story of bronx hs of science teen who learned she loves to code & started XX Hackers! http://t.co/ksTMeNJuoY — (RT @amy_pfister)

1 month ago ago via Twitter

62

1/One of the special things about our industry is how intellectually generous many of the leading participants are (no, I don't mean me :-).
2/When I arrived in Silicon Valley in Jan 1994, I sought out all of the written material I could on startups & venture capital.
3/I found exactly two books. An excellent but dry financial analysis of startup returns, and an excellent but dated book by Gordon Bell.
4/So then I looked for magazines, and found exactly one: Red Herring. Which for several years was the best magazine about startups.
5/But, in 1994, Red Herring was ~8 (?) memographed pages, cost $12 (?), published every 2 months (?), & available at only a few newsstands.
6/That was it. I knew there was more material at Stanford & Harvard business schools but I couldn't get to it. There was nothing else.
7/Today, 20 years later, the difference is *profound*. Many of the leading theorists & practitioners share *huge* amounts of info for free.
8/That's a big difference in SV, but what I hear every day from people all over the world=what a big difference it's making everywhere else.
9/A 14-year-old kid in Indonesia w/smartphone has access to 10,000x more info on tech & startups today than I did in Palo Alto 20 years ago.
10/And the cycle is closing: there is startlingly profound new thinking happening all over the world & coming right back to Silicon Valley.
11/In our industry, it's hard to underestimate the consequences of a positive feedback loop -- and this is a positive feedback loop.
12/Assumption *must* be: Tech entrepreneurship all over the world is going to expand a thousand fold in the next 20 years. How could it not?
.@pmarca In fact, the 95 Theses that Martin Luther nailed to the door in Wittenberg Germany was basically the first #tweetstorm :) — (RT @KyleTibbitts)

1 month ago ago via Twitter

63

9/Excellent followup reading: Jeremy Wagstaff on missed calls, http://t.co/ZSZlJZiGIr @loosewire
1/Lots of Mirth over "Yo" today (http://t.co/vYHSgl9OOh) but actually there's a fascinating aspect lots of people are missing...
2/Yo is an instance of "one-bit communication" -- a message with no content other than the fact that it exists. Yes or no. Yo or no yo.
3/Other instances of one-bit communication: Police siren, flashing stop light, "Open" sign, light turned on, taxicab roof indicator lit.
4/But the most interesting instance of one-bit communication is the global "missed call" phenomenon: http://t.co/EVVISRA40Q
5/Missed call on mobile phone is used as one-bit comm: "Used in South Asia/Philippines/Africa to communicate pre-agreed messages for free."
6/Aided by fact that missed calls cost nothing to send/receive. "In Bangladesh, missed calls are 70% of mobile traffic at any given time."
7/So the hilarity around Yo includes two problematic biases: Bias that one-bit comm isn't useful, and bias that all markets are like the US.
8/I'm not saying Yo will be the next $100B social media powerhouse. But instant dismissal makes little sense; let's learn & keep minds open.

1 month ago ago via Twitter

64

@techmilind Of course the funniest outcome here will be if it turns out to be the next $10B social media property.
1/Lots of Mirth over "Yo" today (http://t.co/vYHSgl9OOh) but actually there's a fascinating aspect lots of people are missing...
2/Yo is an instance of "one-bit communication" -- a message with no content other than the fact that it exists. Yes or no. Yo or no yo.
3/Other instances of one-bit communication: Police siren, flashing stop light, "Open" sign, light turned on, taxicab roof indicator lit.
4/But the most interesting instance of one-bit communication is the global "missed call" phenomenon: http://t.co/EVVISRA40Q
5/Missed call on mobile phone is used as one-bit comm: "Used in South Asia/Philippines/Africa to communicate pre-agreed messages for free."
6/Aided by fact that missed calls cost nothing to send/receive. "In Bangladesh, missed calls are 70% of mobile traffic at any given time."
7/So the hilarity around Yo includes two problematic biases: Bias that one-bit comm isn't useful, and bias that all markets are like the US.
8/I'm not saying Yo will be the next $100B social media powerhouse. But instant dismissal makes little sense; let's learn & keep minds open.
9/Excellent followup reading: Jeremy Wagstaff on missed calls, http://t.co/ZSZlJZiGIr @loosewire

1 month ago ago via Twitter

65

@techmilind I think I'd be more worried if they investors were Sequoia, Accel, Greylock, Benchmark, and Founders Fund :-).
@techmilind Of course the funniest outcome here will be if it turns out to be the next $10B social media property.
1/Lots of Mirth over "Yo" today (http://t.co/vYHSgl9OOh) but actually there's a fascinating aspect lots of people are missing...
2/Yo is an instance of "one-bit communication" -- a message with no content other than the fact that it exists. Yes or no. Yo or no yo.
3/Other instances of one-bit communication: Police siren, flashing stop light, "Open" sign, light turned on, taxicab roof indicator lit.
4/But the most interesting instance of one-bit communication is the global "missed call" phenomenon: http://t.co/EVVISRA40Q
5/Missed call on mobile phone is used as one-bit comm: "Used in South Asia/Philippines/Africa to communicate pre-agreed messages for free."
6/Aided by fact that missed calls cost nothing to send/receive. "In Bangladesh, missed calls are 70% of mobile traffic at any given time."
7/So the hilarity around Yo includes two problematic biases: Bias that one-bit comm isn't useful, and bias that all markets are like the US.
8/I'm not saying Yo will be the next $100B social media powerhouse. But instant dismissal makes little sense; let's learn & keep minds open.
9/Excellent followup reading: Jeremy Wagstaff on missed calls, http://t.co/ZSZlJZiGIr @loosewire

1 month ago ago via Twitter

66

1/Proposed: Unless you're with your kids, what's on screen in your hand = likely more interesting & important than what's around you.
2/Sounds extreme, yet how could it not be true most of the time? Screen in your hand contains the entire world vs immediate locality.
3/This is personal for me: I grew up in very small rural town; Kids in rural towns today grow up way more connected to the world than I did.
4/People around you not interested in same things? No problem, screen in your hand connects you to like-minded people everywhere.
5/People around you can't teach you the things you want to know? No problem, screen in your hand gives you all the information you want.
6/The place where you live doesn't have economic opportunity for you? Screen in your hand gives you access to global opportunities, markets.
7/Bastiat's "seed and unseen": What we see are people staring at their phones. What we don't see are their interactions with the world.
8/And then it comes back around: Our online virtual world enhances and improves our local physical world & our friends and family in it.
9/Recommend reading David Gerlenter's "Mirror Worlds", on how our virtual & physical worlds improve one another: http://t.co/MXph8TMhvo

1 month ago ago via Twitter

67

1/Speaking of disruption: Tech people like me can sometimes come across as presumptuous/arrogant re disruption of other peoples' industries.
1a/It is possible this is an understatement. I am sure that some of my Twitter friends will expand on this for me :-).
2/From this side of the aisle, though, it's less smugness, more the result of hard experience and learning from our own lives and careers.
3/In tech, our *own* businesses are disrupted by technology change and new competitive entrants at whiplash-inducing rates.
4/It's shocking how quickly you can go from the hot disruptive upstart to the stodgy disrupted incumbent in tech--frequently within 5 years.
5/I've probably been on the receiving end of disruption 30 times in the last 20 years--almost as many times as I've been on the giving end.
6/Now, on the one hand, you might say, "How can people live like that?" ... what's wrong with a little stability?
7/But, what we see is: Frequent disruption is the handmaiden of rapid progress--and it's a blast to create and work amid rapid progress.
8/It's not just rapid progress of tech. It's also rapid grown of companies, and even better, rapid development of *people* & their talents.
9/It's hard to stay in tech for any period of time and not get good at rapid adaptation, skill acquisition... and new product creation.
10/As software eats the world: Same disruption dynamics always present in tech now applying to many more industries, fields, professions.
11/Rather than superiority/contempt, what a lot of us feel is deep sympathy/understanding-- even if that's not always how it comes across!
12/And now we all have the opportunity to learn together--to make many parts of industry/life more innovative/dynamic, better for everyone.

1 month ago ago via Twitter

68

On disruption theory

1/Fascinating question around Christensen's theory of disruption: "OK, smart guy, why haven't Apple iPhone/iPad been disrupted by Android?"
2/I count five possible answers; there may be more...
3/A. Theory of disruption is hucksterish management consultant fraud. (This one I do not agree with.)
4/B. Right now Apple *is* the disruptor--iPhones/iPads vs Windows PCs. Many surprised by rapid rise of direct substitution, including me.
5/C. Apple *is* getting disrupted right now: Android phones outselling iPhones somewhere between 5:1 and 10:1 worldwide right now.
6/D: Related to C, Apple isn't getting disrupted *yet*, but will be soon. This is what many in Silicon Valley believe, but Apple does not.
7/E: The most interesting one: Current theory of disruption is incomplete; does not have a broad enough concept of end-user quality.
8/In this line of argument, disruption theory was born in Microsoft/Intel era, when everyone expected computers to have, um, certain issues.
9/Apple brilliantly redefined conception what was possible from end-user quality and integration standpoint, against prevailing assumptions.
10/We have attempted to generalize *this* concept into "full stack" thinking, which many of today's best startups are also pursuing.
11/It's possible disruption theory needs to be evolved to accommodate these newer patterns and learnings...
12/But it's also possible all such "full stack" patterns are just integrated approaches that themselves will be disrupted in the future.
13/Time will tell. In Silicon Valley, these topics are central and being debated both in actions and words by ultra-smart people every day.
14/References: http://t.co/HJI1nL97C9 http://t.co/Gxz600QDIh + Discussions w/@cdixon @stevesi @balajis @bhorowitz & others.

1 month ago ago via Twitter

69

@fmanjoo @mmasnick @vpostrel Disruption theory is quite good re the past, often useful re the future, & frequently valuable re the present.
@fmanjoo @mmasnick @vpostrel In what I like to call "the real world", correctly understanding the present is actually quite helpful.
@fmanjoo @mmasnick @vpostrel Many of the most useful theories of human behavior are better re the present than the future. Not surprising.
@fmanjoo @mmasnick @vpostrel People are complicated, situations are complex. But ways to understand are valuable even when not perfect.

1 month ago ago via Twitter

70

@fmanjoo @mmasnick @vpostrel There's explaining the past, there's predicting the future, but there's also understanding the present.
@fmanjoo @mmasnick @vpostrel Disruption theory is quite good re the past, often useful re the future, & frequently valuable re the present.
@fmanjoo @mmasnick @vpostrel In what I like to call "the real world", correctly understanding the present is actually quite helpful.
@fmanjoo @mmasnick @vpostrel Many of the most useful theories of human behavior are better re the present than the future. Not surprising.
@fmanjoo @mmasnick @vpostrel People are complicated, situations are complex. But ways to understand are valuable even when not perfect.

1 month ago ago via Twitter

71

@vpostrel The obvious question is what other substantive/accurate/useful theories does she feel qualified to attack the same way.
@vpostrel Put another way: Christensen's disruption theory is the opposite of handwaving; her essay is the definition of handwaving.
@vpostrel Substance matters. Real things in the real world are not contemptuously dismissible with a cultural studies critique.
@vpostrel (I am fully aware that you know all this!)

1 month ago ago via Twitter

72

@vpostrel She didn't have to do that; she chose to do that.
@vpostrel The obvious question is what other substantive/accurate/useful theories does she feel qualified to attack the same way.
@vpostrel Put another way: Christensen's disruption theory is the opposite of handwaving; her essay is the definition of handwaving.
@vpostrel Substance matters. Real things in the real world are not contemptuously dismissible with a cultural studies critique.
@vpostrel (I am fully aware that you know all this!)

1 month ago ago via Twitter

73

@vpostrel I am deliberately heightening the contradictions to make the larger point.
@vpostrel She picked a substantive/accurate/useful business/tech theory & decided to dismiss it as a pointless cultural artifact.
@vpostrel She didn't have to do that; she chose to do that.
@vpostrel The obvious question is what other substantive/accurate/useful theories does she feel qualified to attack the same way.
@vpostrel Put another way: Christensen's disruption theory is the opposite of handwaving; her essay is the definition of handwaving.
@vpostrel Substance matters. Real things in the real world are not contemptuously dismissible with a cultural studies critique.
@vpostrel (I am fully aware that you know all this!)

1 month ago ago via Twitter

74

@jenny8lee I think judging from these emails, this particular company actually had pretty good interaction with VCs it pitched.
@jenny8lee A lot of companies would tell you that they never got replies that courteous or that articulate.
@jenny8lee The feedback that founders often never get that can be most important is "we don't think you're good enough to pull it off".
@jenny8lee A big undercovered component to this whole process is, what does it mean to be qualified to be a tech founder & raise VC?
@jenny8lee I.e. what did the founders do for the 10 years prior to trying to raise VC for their startup?
Orszag: It's time for some optimism about health care spending http://t.co/c1lLUvhkvd — (RT @voxdotcom)

1 month ago ago via Twitter

75

How many heart-wrenching developing-world charity initiatives are scams that make things even worse, like this? http://t.co/dB7AzMdx46
Specifically, how many nonprofit initiatives promoted and sponsored by high-profile Western charity umbrella organizations are of this type?
Finally, at what point do we upgrade our assessments of Dambisa Moyo and James Shikwati? http://t.co/wm9fCDoQdm http://t.co/RGzLJ9punf
[new post] Sunday Conversation #10 with @Rabois, on Bitcoin, Stripe, valuations, Homerun, and being a VC-founder: http://t.co/t5jxkRgxFE — (RT @semil)

1 month ago ago via Twitter

77

@DanielleMorrill What I mean: companies that hit product/market fit right away don't need to raise very much initial capital.
@DanielleMorrill This is the opposite of "Not raising very much initial capital makes it more likely you'll be super-successful."
@DanielleMorrill If you take the "small amounts of initial capital cause success" argument seriously, then...
@DanielleMorrill ...the rational thing to do would be to shut down any startup that burns through initial ~$3M of capital without success.
@DanielleMorrill But obviously that doesn't make sense -- sometimes things just take longer and/or are more expensive than others.
@DanielleMorrill Which exposes flaw in the theory. The theory doesn't really hold and people don't really believe it, but they still say it.
@DanielleMorrill (Because people dearly want to believe there are specific causes of success that can be applied in any situation :-).

1 month ago ago via Twitter

78

1/A few thoughts on timing and staging of capital into modern tech startups -- start with fact that 2003-20011 seed rounds were ~$500K-1M.
2/As @DanielleMorrill points out, now you see more startups raising $2-3-4M or even more in "seed" financing, often in multiple tranches.
3/So then think about the startup that's raised $3-4M or even $5-6M in "seed" funding that goes to raise a "Series A" from VC firms.
4/VC looks back across the table: "You're not raising a Series A, you're raising a Series B--you already raised your Series A [in seed $]".
5/This can take the startup by surprise, because it really affects how VCs think about progress and milestones, key to raising new round.
6/VCs assume Series A is to build product + get first beta customers; Series B is to build the business around the product + get to revenue.
7/So a startup that raised as much $ as a Series A in seed funds, but hasn't achieved actual Series A milestones, can be in real trouble.
8/VC says: "You said you're raising A but you're actually raising B, and you haven't accomplished enough to merit a B. Thank you, but pass."
9/So the risk of calling $3-4-5-6M "seed" raises "seed" is that founder can fool himself/herself heading into the first real VC raise.
10/The rise of the "New Series A" by firms like A Capital is intended to address this issue head on. http://t.co/85ry6XtiiE
11/In effect, a $3-5M seed round or a $3-5M "New Series A" is a recreation of the original conception of an A round from historical VC.
12/Takeaway for founders? Think very hard about timing and staging of capital vs progress and milestones; matters a lot for raising A/B/C.

1 month ago ago via Twitter

79

1/"The VA scheduling system scheduled its first appointment in April of 1985. It has not changed in any appreciable manner since that date."
2/Said Philip Matkovsky, assistant deputy under-secretary of the VA. http://t.co/558HmaTfq7
3/So, watch "Halt and Catch Fire", while thinking to yourself, current VA scheduling system was being built at the same time.
4/And then think about the odds of any private company still being in business with a core system running unchanged for 30 years.

1 month ago ago via Twitter

80

1/On AI & the Turing Test: Recently the Internet got all fired up--did a software bot pass/not pass the Turing Test: http://t.co/X4MRbdhjfk
2/Turing Test, proposed by uber-genius Alan Turing in 1950, is: Can a software bot convince a human it's also human, via text chat?
3/My view is that Turing Test has always been malformed, humans are too easy to trick, passing test says almost nothing about software.
4/"But Marc, Alan Turing was the genius of all time, and you're just some dude on Twitter. What the hell, man?" That's a good point!
5/Turing said something else that I think is far more relevant, which he announced loudly in the executive cafeteria at Bell Labs in 1942:
6/Turing: "I’m not interested in developing a powerful brain. All I’m after is just a mediocre brain, something like the president of AT&T."
7/And I think that's actually what happened, and it happened in the form of enterprise software: the code that runs businesses today.
8/Yep, that's right: Actual AI is SAP, Peoplesoft, Oracle, http://t.co/IQqvVD9Xj7, Workday, Netsuite, Great Plains, and a thousand others.
9/AI turned out to be the last thing anyone expected. Banal.
10/Credits: Conversations with @cdixon @balajis @bhorowitz; http://t.co/soBTqHeeTn http://t.co/jpvhrwsoT7 http://t.co/XKlfEcP9uw

1 month ago ago via Twitter

81

@HilzFuld The other thing that can't be underestimated is getting the cost structure right.
@HilzFuld And the OTHER thing that can't be underestimated is the value of 100% offensive focus, not protecting an offline business.
@HilzFuld Those latter two are persistently underestimated by the incumbents.
Congrats to @autismspeaks & the Google Cloud Genomics team on creating a huge public database for autism research -- http://t.co/AKwcfntEx1 — (RT @jhuber)

1 month ago ago via Twitter

82

@HilzFuld I think it's easier now at least in many cases. The art and science is much better understood now.
@HilzFuld And advertisers are figuring out they have to move the money over. They're highly receptive to the conversation.
@HilzFuld And so many incumbents are just collapsing in place and not putting up a real fight.
@HilzFuld Also don't underestimate the hybrid business models these days. Ads + subs + conferences works pretty well as an example.

1 month ago ago via Twitter

83

@munilass I am increasingly coming around to a view that there may not have even been a dot com bubble. (Nobody agrees with me on that.)
@munilass It is striking how many failed dot com ideas from the late 90's are working today (in every sense of working, e.g. profit).
@munilass I think it's possible that VCs of that era were, at least for the most part, making rational bets against big opportunities.
@munilass I think it's possible that dot coms got sideswiped by what was (in my view) undoubtedly a (bigger & different) telecom bubble.
@munilass ...and that there's a counterfactual history where telecom investment didn't go so nuts & dot coms on whole would have been fine.

1 month ago ago via Twitter

84

1/How important is new communication technology both to maintenance of state control & subversion of state control? http://t.co/mpxdNs0dzf
2/1989: "40 years into the era of xerography, Soviet Union is moving its photocopiers from guarded, double-locked, steel-covered doors..."
3/"...admitting photocopiers are standard office equipment and not really the grave threat to state security as they were once perceived."
4/"Main Directorate of Protecting Public Order said recent spread to more than 60,000 different Soviet organizations of photocopiers..."
5/"...had made its task of supervising their operation virtually impossible...freed in major step towards glasnost, or political openness."
6/"Inspectors from the Interior Ministry will no longer be checking each machine to ensure that it is locked in secure quarters..."
7/"...that complete registers are kept of the documents copied and that the numbers of copies correspond to tamper-proof counters."
8/"People had faced very long lines [to make copies], as they and their papers were scrutinized at authorized photocopier offices."
9/"Izvestia said 'the primary goal was to prevent the proliferation of undesirable texts' in the Soviet Union..."
10/"'From the first days of Soviet power, even typewriters were put under tight supervision, and that was abolished only recently.'"
11/"Chief of Second Department of Main Directorate of Protecting Public Order, said new technology has overtaken controls on photocopiers."
12/"With computers/optical scanners/laser printers 'to produce a whole newspaper'...regulations governing copiers have become pointless."

1 month ago ago via Twitter

85

@vgr Step 1: Locate someplace cheap with great Internet access; perhaps downtown Detroit.
@vgr Step 2: Do programming jobs on Rentacoder/eLance/equivalent enough to cover expenses; build A+ online reputation for great results.
@vgr Step 3: Spend 2/3rds remaining time becoming primary contributor to leading-edge open source projects on Github.
@vgr Step 3 cont'd: Build amazing reputation on Github and in developer community for amazing code in leading-edge areas (eg Bitcoin).
@vgr Step 4: Spend remaining 1/3 time blogging and tweeting on those leading-edge areas; build online reputation as lead expert in field.
@vgr Step 5: Iterate as needed until one gets serious job offer at credible company to move to Silicon Valley. Move to Silicon Valley.
@vgr Step 6: Work at that company for 2-4 years and knock the ball out of the park; continue open source and blogging work on the side.
@vgr Step 7: Based on accumulate reputation and results, get job at top SV rocket ship company like Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest.
@vgr Step 8: Work at that company for 2-4 years and knock the ball out of the park; continue open source/blogging; meet lots of people.
@vgr Step 9: Start own company with smartest people one has met along the way; off to the races.

1 month ago ago via Twitter

86

1/Have to post this again because it's just too good not to -- who's coming to Silicon Valley from @BW: http://t.co/0ZgujRkP4M
2/One third of Silicon Valley startups are founded by Indian-Americans.
3/As of 2010, Asian-Americans are the majority of Silicon Valley tech workforce: 50% vs 40% for Caucasians.
4/Possibly eye-opening sources of talent in quantity: Japan, Middle East, Vietnam, France, Pacific Islands, Africa, Caribbean.
5/Silicon Valley is a powerful successful example of the "melting pot" theory: ignore origin and ethnicity, come together to do big things.
6/Why we must continue to push to expand access/openness/inclusion to all origins/ethnicities/genders/religions: huge opportunities ahead.

1 month ago ago via Twitter

87

2/First, some tech superpowers help us as consumers, but many upgrade us as creators, builders, inventors, designers, artists: *producers*.
3/While it is true that tech superpowers can replace need for prior manual labor, it's also true that they enhance our ability to produce.
4/Both sides of the equation are critical, otherwise one collapses into the Luddite fallacy and holds back progress that benefits everyone.
5/This is also why I think we need an ongoing vigorous social safety net, to help people bridge gaps in their lives as tech leaps forward.
6/Second, tech superpowers at this point are being applied more or less equally to individuals, governments, and businesses.
7/In Orwell's vision, government got all the tech superpowers. In our world, everyone seems to be getting them all at the same time.
8/Same tech advances that enable NSA surveillance also enabled Edward Snowden to walk out of NSA with 1.7 million classified documents.
9/(Ability to use a web crawler and a thumb drive would have been the fantasy of all time for Kim Philby. Times have changed.)
10/The impact of tech superpower upgrading of individuals, businesses, and governments radically shifts power balances between the three.
11/The politics of the next 30 years will be in large part defined by the shifting impact of tech superpowers across indiv, bus, and gov't.
12/Prior conflicts like Snowden, SOPA, the Arab Spring, and cybercrime are only open gambits -- the real drama is yet to come.
1/Part 4 of "tech gives people superpowers" tweetstream (part 3: https://t.co/2qAzQwUY1k) -- implications of the growth of tech superpowers.
13/My nomination: Tech-driven price deflation; lowers prices, reduces measured GDP & productivity, while boosting consumer welfare.

1 month ago ago via Twitter

88

1/Progressive and smart economist Jared Bernstein on the productivity puzzle of robots eating all the jobs (or not): http://t.co/8Gd2AQugYn
2/"Productivity growth was up 1% last year and has averaged 0.8% since 2011...[a] smooth trend through the numbers."
3/"The trend suggests that the pace of productivity growth has decelerated since the first half of the 2000s: begs an important question."
4/"I keep hearing about 'the end of work' based on the assumption that the pace of labor-saving technology—robots, AI—has accelerated."
5/"Maybe it has—there’s lots of good anecdotes to that effect, most recently that geeky-looking Google self-driving car."
6/"But the robots-are-coming advocates need to explain why a phenomenon that should be associated with accelerating productivity..."
7/"... is allegedly occurring over a fairly protracted period where the [productivity] trend in output per hour is going the other way."
8/"A shave with Occam’s razor [explanation]...would be weak demand and its corollary, weak capital investment [nothing to do with robots]."
9/"Until someone can convince me what’s wrong with the above argument, I don’t want to hear that automation is precluding full employment."
10/My own take: We're still coming out of a severe macroeconomic down cycle, credit crisis, deleveraging, liquidity trap.
11/Prevailing pessimistic economic theories--death of innovation, robots eating all the jobs, crisis of inequality--will fade with recovery.
12/For bonus points, identify the other tech-driven economic force that could explain low productivity at a time of great tech advancement.

1 month ago ago via Twitter

89

@alexismadrigal @tonyflo Other implication of better understanding of brain chemistry/neurology = revolution in theory of crime&punishment.
@alexismadrigal @tonyflo The question of what behaviors individuals are actually responsible for is going to open way up.
@alexismadrigal @tonyflo As well as, what to do about people behaving in societally deviant ways who scientifically can't help it.
@pmarca transparency should be another one. The super power to democratize knowledge and call out bullshit on the spot. — (RT @miguelsampedro)

1 month ago ago via Twitter

90

1/Part 3 of "tech gives people superpowers" tweetstream (part 2: https://t.co/WaEQoefuqz) -- new superpowers coming in the next 10 years.
2/This is a difficult list to make; there are hundreds if not thousands of candidate superpowers on deck that could hit big next 10 years.
3/Crowdfunding = superpower to instantly raise money from global customers and investors for millions of new ideas, products, businesses
4/Quantified self = superpower to understand one's own body continuously in real time, optimize health & wellness with high precision
5/3D printing = superpower to design and instantly manufacture physical objects with zero inventory, supply chain, or transportation
6/Combine modern bio, 3D printing, & computing-->prosthetics & exoskeletons; superpower: paralyzed to walk, disabled to abled, bilnd to see
7/Bitcoin & blockchain = superpower to instantly & safely transact, do business, engage in commerce & trade with everyone in the world
8/Virtual reality = superpower to experience other places and times, real and created, serious and fun; telepresence replaces transportation
9/Augmented reality = superpower to know a million times more about the world around you and everything in it; step function increase in IQ
10/Self-driving cars = superpower to dramatically reduce # of cars on road, turn parking lots into parks, while saving millions of lives
11/Drones = superpower to easily function in the air just like we do on the ground; see from the sky, deliver in the air, and fly in VR
12/And yes, robots = superpower to augment human physical capability; easily do physical work too difficult or dangerous for unaided humans
13/The nature of each of these is that we don't yet live in a world where they are ubiquitous: very difficult to imagine true implications.
14/We therefore can predict only a very small fraction of the things that people will do with these superpowers once they have them.
@pmarca Knowledge is power. Getting access to right information is the first step in it...wearables, quantified self, drones, satellites... — (RT @bznotes)

1 month ago ago via Twitter

91

1/Techcrunch commenters during coverage of Uber's <$50M pre-money valuation financing round 3 years ago: http://t.co/x8uvBheDAj HT @semil
2/"As someone who has been in the car service business his whole life, a valuation that high is asking for trouble."
3/"I wish them luck; however, it is a very mom and pop industry and you will be lucky to just make a living."
4/"If Uber becomes the most successful [car service company] out there, you are not looking at a billion dollar company by any means."
5/"I don't know of any competitive advantage Uber has over Carey or Boston Coach...which can launch similar technology in matter of weeks."
6/"I'm looking forward to seeing if Uber is actually successful outside of San Francisco."
7/"Wow, $11 million for a company that is equivalent to calling a taxi! Why didn't I think of that!"
8/"I'm surprised. Is Uber in the clear yet legally? Seems like they could still be shut down any day."

1 month ago ago via Twitter

92

Between "Halt and Catch Fire" and "Silicon Valley", people can finally see what tech startups are actually like on the inside.
@mrsenorhill @cdixon I think for smart VCs you can increasingly show them a combo of a small # of extremely happy customers...
@mrsenorhill @cdixon ...and then a bottoms-up market sizing estimate that shows how that small # could become large in the future.
"Halt and Catch Fire" on AMC is an absolutely pitch-perfect recreation of the birth of the PC industry: http://t.co/Ln6yRku0Rp

1 month ago ago via Twitter

93

@WillOremus You'd correlate passwords and logins with IP addresses, cookies, etc.
@WillOremus But you'd interfere with a lot of legitimate logins for users travelling &/or using multiple devices in the process.
@WillOremus And then the compounding problem of various family members each travelling &/or using multiple devices.
@WillOremus So you'd take a hit to customer satisfaction that would really have to be worth it.

1 month ago ago via Twitter

94

@takingpitches @koxinga21 Hedge fund mgr friend of mine argues that ACA is an implicit subsidy of capital owners at taxpayer expense.
@takingpitches @koxinga21 ACA motivates owners of businesses to push employees down/out of employer-backed health care plans.
@takingpitches @koxinga21 As well as transform full time jobs into part time jobs to be able to tap into government program more.
@takingpitches @koxinga21 Net result = taxpayers cover more health care costs, employers cover less. Capital owners win, taxpayers lose.

1 month ago ago via Twitter

95

@koxinga21 Second, the bad news: Baumol's cost disease; consequence of healthcare not seeing sufficient productivity advances.
@koxinga21 The answer to both has to be to crank up technology innovation in healthcare, to drive up quality & drive down cost.
@koxinga21 A positive case study for what's possible is the cost of LASIK eye surgery, which has fallen dramatically in 15 years.
@koxinga21 We should bring that same rapid cost decline to every other major part of healthcare spending through better technology.

1 month ago ago via Twitter

96

@koxinga21 So that gets to another really important issue, which is the rising cost of healthcare (the basket of products & services in HC).
@koxinga21 Healthcare costs naturally want to rise extremely fast for two really important reasons:
@koxinga21 First, the good news: definition of healthcare keeps expanding as more treatments, drugs, protocols are invented.
@koxinga21 We not only want everyone to have healthcare, we want everyone to have everything IN healthcare which keeps expanding.

1 month ago ago via Twitter

97

@koxinga21 It's MOOCs but also Google, Wikipedia, Youtube, Kahn Academy, Github, Wolfram Alpha, Google Scholar, and thousands more.
@koxinga21 All free to everyone with a smartphone + net connection, which will be ~6 billion people by the end of the decade.
@koxinga21 This goes to the argument I had with economist friend, who said "Most people are like horses, they can only offer their labor."
@koxinga21 I deeply have more faith in the capabilities and potential of people everywhere than that, & increasingly they'll have the tools.

1 month ago ago via Twitter

98

1/Part two of "tech gives people superpowers" tweetstream (part 1: https://t.co/2Bx6rZwefV) -- new superpowers just in the last ~10 years:
2/Google, Wikipedia = superpower to ask any question, get any answer, as many as you want, for free -- from the world's total knowledge base
3/Facebook = superpower to always be connected with everyone important in your life, regardless of geography, all the time, for free
4/eBay, Etsy, Alibaba = superpower to take goods you make or want to resell to a global market of buyers, with transparent & fair pricing
5/GPS + Google Maps + smartphones = superpower to never be lost, always be able to find anything, and always know where your kids are
6/Spotify, Beats = superpower to listen to the entirety of recorded music in human culture as much as you want, anytime you want
7/Lyft, Uber, AirBNB, HotelTonight = superpower to be able to easily move around and then stay places with transparency and safety
8/Skype, Slack, Asana = superpower to form into teams and collaborate on projects with people all over the world regardless of geography
9/Github = superpower as a programmer to build new software with unprecedented ease and power, on top of a global base of existing code
10/AWS = superpower as a programmer to access a global supercomputer with miraculous power on demand for mere dollars
11/These are only a few examples -- there are probably 100 more new tech superpowers just in the last 10 years of similar magnitude.
12/I am firmly convinced many people are fundamentally underestimating the power and potential of these new superpowers in the years ahead.
13/We are only at the very beginning of understanding what people all over the world are going to be able to create and build from here.

1 month ago ago via Twitter

99

1/A rare interview with one of my heroes: Stanford Professor Donald Knuth, author of "Art of Computer Programming"...
2/"I can speak only to people who happen to have grown up with the strange kind of 'brain organization' that I seem to have..."
3/"For lack of a better word, let me simply say that I'm a 'geek.' I haven't got a good definition or a good litmus test for geekhood..."
4/"...but I definitely know it when I see it; and I see it in about 2% of the world's population. The main characteristic is an ability..."
5/"...to understand many levels of abstraction simultaneously, and to shift effortlessly between in-the-large and in-the-small."
6/"Dear young person, if you are a geek, the world needs you, and you will never run out of opportunities to apply your talents."

2 months ago ago via Twitter

100

@mmasnick @mathewi @dangillmor It's within NSA remit to monitor SIGINT into and out of the US involving foreigners.
@mmasnick @mathewi @dangillmor So how to fulfill that mission when one person in the communication chain is an American citizen?
@mmasnick @mathewi @dangillmor It's a very complex issue. Smart people in government have grappled with it for decades.
@mmasnick @mathewi @dangillmor I'm not saying surveillance of US citizens is right. I'm saying this particular issue is complex.

2 months ago ago via Twitter

101

@mathewi @dangillmor Snowden has committed many acts by revealing many secrets.
@mathewi @dangillmor The majority are self-evidently treason as they reveal foreign intelligence operations not involving US citizens.
@mathewi @dangillmor There are a handful involving US citizens that may deserve whistleblower status.
@mathewi @dangillmor But even those are complex, and not just slam dunk black and white "he's a hero".
@mathewi @dangillmor Like I said, for example, I don't think phone metadata is a black and white issue the way it's being portrayed.
@mathewi @dangillmor Another example, the early PRISM reporting was spectacularly wrong, which has stuck.

2 months ago ago via Twitter

102

@dangillmor The whistleblower case could be legitimately argued, in my view, for issues specific to US citizens.
@dangillmor There is no whistleblower case for revealing foreign intelligence operations not involving US citizens.
@dangillmor Which is the majority of what has happened.
@dangillmor To just ignore that or say it's OK is a whole new definition of OK from all US legal norms and precedents.

2 months ago ago via Twitter

103

@dangillmor The vast majority of the Snowden leaks have nothing to do with US citizens or US infrastructure.
@dangillmor The comprehensive leaking of US intelligence operations globally are treasonous by definition.
@dangillmor If Snowden and his allies had only revealed issues specific to US citizens & US companies, that would be one thing.
@dangillmor But that is very much not what has happened.
@dangillmor Snowden fans have cognitive dissonance, are ignoring all of his leaks that have nothing to do with US citizens: most of them.

2 months ago ago via Twitter

104

@dangillmor NSA has been dual mission: protect US infrastructure + spy on foreign communication. That's obviously not sustainable.
@dangillmor As you know, at Netscape we were a big part of the fight with the NSA to overturn export controls on strong encryption.
@dangillmor I am an unconditional fan of unlimited strong encryption worldwide and always have been, as demonstrated by us creating SSL.
@dangillmor And I think the "protecting US infrastructure" part of the mission needs to increasingly dominate between the two.

2 months ago ago via Twitter

105

1/For the following, substitute rapidly rising tide of products & services for "Coke":
2/"What's great about this country is that America started the tradition where the richest consumers..."
3/"...buy essentially the same things as the poorest. You can be watching TV and see Coca-Cola: you know that the President drinks Coke..."
4/"...Liz Taylor drinks Coke, and just think, you can drink Coke, too. A Coke is a Coke and no amount of money can get you a better Coke..."
5/"...than the one the bum on the corner is drinking. All the Cokes are the same and all the Cokes are good..."
6/".... Liz Taylor knows it, the President knows it, the bum knows it, and you know it." --Andy Warhol, 1975, http://t.co/jvqC0j07Nz

2 months ago ago via Twitter

106

@adamgurri @elidourado Economists who are not engineers are way more generous on the rate of progress of technology than engineers are.
@adamgurri @elidourado If I could also handwave my way into inventing robots that do everything, I'd be all set :-).
1/Technology innovation disproportionately helps the poor more than it helps the rich, as the poor spend more of their income on products.
2/This sounds like it must be a controversial and politically charged position, and yet it is not -- it flows from basic economics.
3/The best way to understand this is by historical example: What the rich used to have and what the poor now have, due to tech innovation.
4/Rich have always been able to pay servants to wash dishes; due to tech change, now most US homes have automatic dishwashers.
5/Rich have always been able to pay servants to wash and dry clothes; now most US homes have automated washers and dryers.
6/Rich were able to afford to have fresh ice delivered daily to make iceboxes work; now all American homes have refrigerators.
7/Rich were always able to afford to hire musicians to play in their homes; now audio equipment and digital music are cheap for everyone.
8/At one point only the rich could pay for horses, buggies, stables, coachmen -- now cars are easily affordable by almost everyone in West.
9/Go far enough back, only rich could afford hand-copied books or to employ scribes; printing press made books accessible to the poor.
10/Technology innovation is the main process by which luxury items become produced, packaged, and made affordable for everyone.
11/Opposing tech innovation is punishing the poor by slowing the process by which they get things previously only affordable to the rich.
12/And, tech innovation is the process by which everyone in the world will be able to afford things that are plentiful in the West today.
13/A great lens on this is the US HUD housing survey; shows rapid material progress of poor Americans quite clearly. http://t.co/UkuFNDuUzj
Econorobotodesign (noun): The process by which economists with no technical training make up imaginary robots that can do everything.

2 months ago ago via Twitter

107

@paultomkinson The protocol is that we can't invest in two companies that directly compete at the time of our investment.
@paultomkinson So if we are already in one company, and another comes along that competes for the same market, we can't invest.
@paultomkinson There can be arguments about what competes with what. We generally say "competing for same customer and $ of spend".
In case you missed it! Entrepreneur Justin Rosenstein (@rosenstein) on the nature and purpose of work -- http://t.co/6wlzrpXmR8

2 months ago ago via Twitter

108

1/Cycle time compression may be the most underestimated force in determining winners & losers in tech.
2/First clear instance of cycle time compression: Cloud/SAAS vs on-premise enterprise software.
3/Cloud/SAAS development cycles can be far faster than on-premise software; single instance deployed instantly to all customers.
4/Further, customers can try and adopt cloud/SAAS far faster than they can try and adopt on-premise software.
5/Implication: Cloud/SAAS is probably impossible to compete with for on-premise software across multiple product cycles.
6/Second clear instance of cycle time compression: Product improvement & customer upgrade cycles for phones vs TVs and cars.
7/Consumers can upgrade their phones every 1-2 years, vs TVs at 5-8 years? Cars at 10-12 years? With phones improving by leaps & bounds.
8/Implication: At given point in time, your TV can be 4-6 years behind your phone; your car can be 9-10 years behind your phone.
9/Implication: TVs and cars will become accessories for phones, not the other way around. And already happening: Airplay, Chromecast.
10Interesting note: Web cycle times still much faster than mobile app cycle times due to restrictive mobile app store policies.

2 months ago ago via Twitter

109

So many people proclaiming "technology will kill all jobs" makes me long for the days when so many people proclaimed "innovation is dead".
@pmarca Which was, like, a year and a half ago...
@pmarca Or the days when "all US programming jobs are moving to India" which was like less than a decade ago...
@pmarca Or the days when "Japan is going to own the entire technology industry" which was 25 years ago...
@pmarca Or the days when "the Soviet Union is going to out-industrialize the US into the ground" which was 50 years ago...

2 months ago ago via Twitter

110

1/This is probably a good time to say that I don't believe "robots will eat all the jobs".
2/Preceding tweetstream was to extrapolate the idea out all the way, not to make the case that it's what's going to happen.
3/First, robots and AI are not nearly as powerful and sophisticated as I think people are starting to fear. Really.
4/With my VC/tech hat on I wish they were, but they're not. Enormous gaps between what we want them to do and what they can do.
5/So there is still an enormous gap between what many people do in jobs today and what robots and AI can replace, and will be for decades.
6/Second, even when robots and AI are far more powerful, there will still be many things that people can do that robots and AI can't.
7/Creativity, innovation, exploration, art, science, entertainment, caring for others... we have no idea how to make machines do these.
8/Third, when automation is abundant and cheap, human experiences become rare and valuable. Flows from our nature as human beings.
9/Examples: Price of recorded music goes to zero; live touring business explodes. Price of drip coffee drops; handmade gourmet coffee grows.
10/You see this effect throughout luxury goods markets. E.g. handmade high-end clothes. Will extend out to far more consumers in future.
11/Fourth, just as most of us today have jobs that weren't even invented 100 years ago, same will be true 100 years from now.
12/We have no idea what the fields/industries/businesses/jobs of the future will be; we just know we will create an enormous # of them.
13/If robots/AI replace people for many of the things we do today, the new fields we create will build on a huge # of people then available.
14/People 50, 100, 150, 200 years ago would marvel at the jobs that exist today; same will be true 50-100-150-200 years from now.
15/To argue huge #'s of people will be available but we will find nothing for them (us) to do is to dramatically short human creativity.

2 months ago ago via Twitter

111

10/Here's the arbitrage logic: Suppose humans make widget X profitably at $10 price to consumer. Robots can make X at $5 price to consumer.
11/Economics drive X to be made entirely by robots; consumers win. But then imagine owner of robots cranks X price to consumer to $20.
12/Suddenly it's profitable for humans to make X again; entrepreneurs immediately start companies to make X with humans for price $10 again.
13/Therefore, with rare exceptions, there won't be states where "robots eat jobs" and "products get more expensive". Almost always cheaper.

2 months ago ago via Twitter

112

1/The necessary consequence of "robots eat all the jobs" is "everything gets really cheap".
2/The main reason to use robots instead of people to make something is when the robot can make it less expensively.
3/When people can make something that costs less than what robots can make, then it makes economic sense to use people instead of robots.
4/This is basic economic arbitrage at work. It sounds it must be a controversial claim but it's simply following the economic logic.
5/So "robots eat jobs in field X" = "products get cheaper in field X" = "consumer standard of living increase in field X" -- necessarily.
6/So arguing against "robots eat jobs" is equivalent to arguing "punish consumers with unnecessarily higher prices".
7/Indeed, had robots/machines not eaten many jobs in agriculture and industry already, we would have a far lower standard of living today.
8/Just as increases in consumer goods prices disproportionately hurt the poor, holding back on robots eating jobs would more hurt the poor.
9/Same logic applies to trade barriers (import tariffs): disproportionately hurt poor consumers by inflicting higher consumer goods prices.

2 months ago ago via Twitter

113

@Noahpinion Reading then-contemporary theories from similar periods in the last 100 years is eye opening.
@Noahpinion By the time I graduated college in 1993, I *knew* Japan would own everything and US economy was dying.
@Noahpinion By 1996, all of those theories had been dropped straight down the memory hole.
@Noahpinion We are all SO confident that we can extrapolate from the recent past and predict the future.

2 months ago ago via Twitter

114

@Noahpinion To the extent it's been happening, I bet most of it has been the impact of dual macroeconomic crises.
@Noahpinion Equity crash of 2000 and subsequent recession, and debt crash of 2008 and subsequent whatever-you-call-it.
@Noahpinion I bet broad-based economic recovery follows and most of these issues drop back off the radar screen.
@Noahpinion Each down cycle seems to produce super-compelling doom and gloom theories that vanish upon the following recovery.
@Noahpinion 30's = capitalism doomed; 70's = inflation forever; 1989-1993 = Japan owns everything; and so on.

2 months ago ago via Twitter

115

@shanselman At the start, the rich are already well off. They have material possessions and servants and all the rest.
@shanselman It takes technology driven change to put those things in forms and at prices where people who are not rich can afford them.
@shanselman Examples everywhere. Consider difference between employing a full-time messenger vs making a Skype call.
@shanselman Consider difference between employing full-time washerpeson vs buying a cheap washing machine.
@shanselman Consider difference between hiring a string quartet to perform live vs buying the same track on iTunes.
@shanselman Most of the things in our lives are things that only the wealthiest people in the world could afford 100 years ago.
@shanselman Not to mention the things that even the wealthiest couldn't possibly have had 100 years ago, starting w/penicillin.

2 months ago ago via Twitter

116

1/Thought experiment: Posit a world in which all material needs are provided for free, by robots and material synthesizers.
2/Housing, energy, health care, food, transportation --> All delivered to everyone for $0, by machines. Zero jobs in those fields remaining.
3/What would be the key characteristics of that world, and what would it be like to live in it?
4/First, it's a consumer utopia: Everyone enjoys a standard of living that kings and Popes could have only dreamed.
5/Fifth, all human time, labor, energy, ambition, and goals reorient to the intangibles: the big questions, the deep needs.
6/Human nature expresses itself fully, for the first time in history. Without physical need constraints, we will be whoever we want to be.
7/The main fields of human endeavor will be culture, arts, sciences, creativity, philosophy, experimentation, exploration, adventure.
8/Rather than nothing to do, we would have everything to do: curiosity, artistic and scientific creativity, new forms of status seeking (!).
9/Imagine six, or 10, billion people doing nothing but arts and sciences, culture and exploring and learning. What a world that would be.
10/The problem seems unlikely to be that we'll get there too fast. The problem seems like to be that we'll get there too slow.

2 months ago ago via Twitter

117

1/The flip side of "robots eat all the jobs" not being discussed: The current revolution in the "means of production" going to everyone.
2/In the form of the smartphone (and tablet and PC) + mobile broadband + the Internet: Will be in almost everyone's hands by 2020.
3/Then everyone gets access to unlimited information, communication, education, access to markets, participate in global market economy.
4/This is not a world we have ever lived in: Historically most people in most places cut off from these things, usually to a high degree.
5/It is hard to believe that the result will not be a widespread global unleashing of creativity, productivity, and human potential.
6/It is hard to believe that people will get these capabilities and then come up with... absolutely nothing useful to do with them.
7/And yet that is the subtext to the "this time is different" argument that there won't be new ideas, fields, industries, businesses, jobs.
8/In arguing this with an economist friend, response was "But most people are like horses; they have only their manual labor to offer."
9/I don't believe that, and I don't want to live in a world in which that's the case. I think people everywhere have far more potential.

2 months ago ago via Twitter

118

1/One of the most interesting topics in modern times is the "robots eat all the jobs" thesis; best book on topic: http://t.co/2bYZrGgbhr
2/The thesis is that computers can more and more substitute for human labor, thus displacing jobs and creating unemployment.
3/At core, this is Luddism (http://t.co/7lZ8vKCXrw) -- "lump of labor" fallacy, that there is a fixed amount of work to be done.
4/The counterargument is Milton Friedman: Human wants and needs are infinite; there is always more to do. 200 years of history confirms.
5/To avoid the Luddite mistake, must believe "this time is different", that either (a) there won't be new wants and needs (vs human nature),
6/Or (b) It won't matter that there are new wants and needs, most people won't be able to adapt to contribute & have jobs in new fields.
7/While it is certainly true that technological change displaces current work & jobs, and that is a serious issue that must be addressed...
8/It is equally true, and important, that the other result of each such change is a step function increase in consumer standards of living.
9/As consumers, we virtually never resist technology change that provides us with better products/services even when it costs jobs...
10/Nor should we. This is how we build a better world, improve quality of life, better provide for our kids, solve fundamental problems.
11/Make no mistake, advocating slowing tech change to preserve jobs = advocating punishing consumers, stalling quality of life improvements.
12/So how then to best help individuals who are buffeted by producer-side technology change and lose jobs they wish they could keep?
13/First, focus on increasing access to education and skill development -- which itself will increasingly be delivered via technology.
14/Second, let markets work (voluntary contracts and trade) so that capital and labor can rapidly reallocate to create new fields and jobs.
15/Third, a vigorous social safety net so that people are not stranded and unable to provide for their families.
16/The loop closes as rapid technological productivity improvement and resulting economic growth make it easy to pay for safety net.

2 months ago ago via Twitter

119

Outstanding piece in NYT on what American kids were like in the 19th century -- eye opening: http://t.co/gOoafKfo0V
"American children of the 19th century had a reputation. Returning British visitors reported on American kids who showed no respect..."
"...who swore and fought, who appeared — at age 10 — 'calling for liquor at the bar, or puffing a cigar in the streets,' as one wrote."
"There were really no children in 19th-century America, travelers often claimed, only 'small stuck-up caricatures of men and women.'"
"The story of every 19th-century empire builder — Carnegie, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt — seems to begin with a striving 10-year-old."

2 months ago ago via Twitter

120

@trengriffin So here's the challenge, paraphrasing from my friend Andy Rachleff who has studied this topic in depth:
@trengriffin There have been two institutional portfolio investing strategies post WWII. The first was 60/40 stocks & bonds.
@trengriffin The second was David Swensen "endowment" model as described in his book http://t.co/gbsQEgI0Eb
@trengriffin What will the third be?
You should watch the premier of "Halt And Catch Fire" tonight. It's great. Or online here: http://t.co/u5a7bcQW2R — (RT @fmanjoo)

2 months ago ago via Twitter

121

@benparr 1 Far better editing/curation tools to view lists of users (e.g. those I follow), what lists they're in, edit lists, etc.
@benparr 2 Surface lists in the UI so they're not so buried and hard to get to e.g. on iPhone app.
@benparr 3 Better discovery -- to discover interesting new lists and do things with them.
@benparr I'm really surprised List functionality is so crude today given that they're ideal for both new users & experienced power users.

2 months ago ago via Twitter

122

Europe adding illegal drug, prostitution, and smuggling activities to official measures of GDP (!!): http://t.co/j5Pkqt64dX
"To some, it smacks of 1987, when Italy started taking account of its [illegal] shadow economy..."
"As a result, the economy grew by 18% overnight, surging past Britain to be the West’s fourth-largest economy..."
"The event was hailed as il sorpasso (the overtaking) and the source of much national joy." !!

2 months ago ago via Twitter

123

@vgr There is no substitute for the actual development of authentic market economies and democratic institutions.
@vgr Much of foreign aid is counterproductive for this reason. Particularly as it routinely get siphoned off to support the status quo.
@vgr Not surprising that attempting to pay more than productivity justifies = money siphoned off by intermediaries, reinforces status quo.
@vgr Solution has to be to raise productivity, increase economic opportunity and access to skill development, encourage good governance.

2 months ago ago via Twitter

124

@BenedictEvans @simondlr In a sense they are highly dominant if you use the traditional definitions of book and ebook.
@BenedictEvans @simondlr But in another, very important sense they are a very small % of "words getting from authors to readers".
@BenedictEvans @simondlr They are a much smaller % of "words getting from authors to readers" than the book pub cartel was 20 years ago.
@BenedictEvans @simondlr I think that's really going on is that the whole concept of "book" needs rethinking just like "newspaper" or "CD".

2 months ago ago via Twitter

125

@BenedictEvans But then the paradox is, what does that say about the actual consumer value delivered in the prior regime?
@BenedictEvans It would seem to say that there was only a fixed amount of demand for books and they were overpriced until now.
@BenedictEvans In which case consumers have been getting screwed up until now, and finally the market is clearing properly now.
@BenedictEvans Which would also be a gain in consumer welfare, not a loss.

2 months ago ago via Twitter

126

@BenedictEvans There's a paradox at the heart of your theory that lower prices could result in less writers/books/choice.
@BenedictEvans Which is that you are assuming there are no elasticity effects or even substitution effects.
@BenedictEvans In that you say lower prices = fewer authors & fewer books with no corresponding demand increase or product substitutes.
@BenedictEvans But then the paradox is, what does that say about the actual consumer value delivered in the prior regime?

2 months ago ago via Twitter

127

3/"...and people stayed employed and real wages kept rising." https://t.co/YtvdkmIIiA
1/"Consider the development of the tractor, which mechanized virtually all of agriculture over the 20th century..."
2/"Somehow new desires and demands sprung up for new kinds of manufactured goods, many of pure entertainment value..."
1/"Economists call it the 'lump of labor fallacy.' It's the idea that there is a fixed amount of work to be done in the world..."
2/"...so any increase in the amount each worker can produce reduces the number of available jobs."
3/[Or, equivalently, the adoption of labor-saving technology, or the increased use of offshore labor.]
4/"(A famous example: those dire warnings in the 1950's that automation would lead to mass unemployment.)"
5/"As the derisive name suggests, economists view idea with contempt, yet the fallacy makes a comeback whenever the economy is sluggish."
6/Paul Krugman in 2003, http://t.co/G2YuGi05hb

2 months ago ago via Twitter

128

@TheStalwart The big thing that happens around most stock offerings these days is ultra-aggressive shorting into the offering.
@TheStalwart Or in the case of an IPO, ultra-aggressive shorting into the lockup coming off (usually at the six month point).
@TheStalwart During the periods in which this aggressive shorting is happening, longs also want the stock to fall...
@TheStalwart ...because when the offering is complete or lockup is over, longs build their actual positions, so they want to buy low.
@TheStalwart So around secondaries and lockup releases, effectively everyone in the market wants the stock to fall.
@TheStalwart Which can then bleed straight into the press coverage. It becomes a self-reinforcing spiral downward.
@TheStalwart Which is why we always advise companies to not go public until they are so bulletproof that they can easily get through this.
Hours Worked, No Change; Output, Up 42%: Here's one snapshot of how the U.S. economy evolved in the last 15 ye... http://t.co/Zv9d22AFU4 — (RT @TimothyTTaylor)

2 months ago ago via Twitter

129

11/Commenters correctly point out that for VC (more than other fields), to calculate "success" rate, must account for great opp'ys passed.
12/I.e. total "at bats" = decisions made to pull trigger whether they worked or not, plus decisions to pass on big wins one could have had.
13/So "at bats" probably more like 120%-140% of # of decisions made to invest. Knocks overall "success" rate down a fair amount. Humbling!
Now that we've trained everyone to understand VSOE, time to un-learn it! http://t.co/KSJjg4NdZg — (RT @skupor)

2 months ago ago via Twitter

130

1/Heading into our 5th anniversary Annual Meeting next week, risk and return of high-tech startups and venture capital on my mind...
2/My rough estimate of my personal "success" (positive vs negative outcome) rate of bets on new products and companies is ~60-65%.
3/Meaning, of course, my "failure" (negative vs positive outcome) rate is ~35-40%. I.e. I'm wrong about several things at all times.
4/Per Tversky/Kahneman loss aversion, the negative outcomes weigh much more heavily on my mind: key challenge = manage own psychology.
5/Per Taleb antifragility, the saving grace of my business is: Each loss capped at 1x, but wins can scale to 1,000x and even beyond.
6/I am also blessed in having partners and colleagues over 20 years and today who are often better at picking than I am.
7/I envy my hedge fund friends who can fully implement "strong views weakly held" and trade out of bad positions any time they want.
8/However, because we make hard commitments for 10+ years, we can win from sleeper hits that take longer to develop. That's very satisfying.
9/On balance, progress is made. But the emotional rollercoaster never stops! Our entire field is constantly exhilarating and terrifying.
10/The other saving grace is seeing people we work with develop, succeed, and flourish. Enormously fulfilling, makes it all worthwhile.

2 months ago ago via Twitter

131

@prchovanec Watching the cable bundle slowly dissolve is fascinating. It's like a Mexican standoff in reverse.
@prchovanec In the long run, probably both the content providers and the cable companies are better off unbundled.
@prchovanec But both sides are deeply worried about going through the transition.
@prchovanec So each backs away slowly from the other, hoping the other won't start backing away even faster.

2 months ago ago via Twitter

132

@wild_er No, not at all. Why I am so excited that global inequality is shrinking rapidly. Rise of billions of people out of poverty.
@wild_er I think there are two definitions of middle class. One is classical idea of the bourgeoisie: merchants, traders, businesspeople.
@wild_er The other emerged in the US post-WWII: college wages for high school educations, insulated by unions and protectionism.
@wild_er What we need is a lot more of the former -- which we are getting globally right now, which is tremendously exciting and positive.
Full video of #VMware panel featuring @MelissaLeeCNBC, @pmarca, CEOs of @FireEye @EMCcorp @VMware & @Stanford. http://t.co/nSGOZlEw0w — (RT @oliverroll)

2 months ago ago via Twitter

133

@FabiusMaximus01 Books like this have two levels of impact: one inside academic economics, the other in the real world.
@FabiusMaximus01 The consequences in the real world can be profound; e.g. a prior book named "Capital" by a European economist.
@FabiusMaximus01 It's dirty pool for economists to play the "but we're just doing academic economics" card when challenged.
@FabiusMaximus01 Piketty himself is politically active; proactive support for both Royal and Hollande in France.

2 months ago ago via Twitter

134

@henryfarrell I think that's increasingly clear.
@henryfarrell I'm not saying he did it with intent to deceive. But I think he had a political position and worked the data to justify it.
@henryfarrell We are talking about someone who has actively advised and supported both Royal and Hollande.
@pmarca And if you’re actually interested in what I think about the Piketty debate, it’s here - http://t.co/rumncATYYD — (RT @henryfarrell)

2 months ago ago via Twitter

135

@pm @jfarmer I suspect a more subtle effect than intentional deceit, actually.
@pm @jfarmer I think you have a tenured professor at the Paris School of Economists who by his own admission rarely leaves Paris.
@pm @jfarmer I think he has a powerful internal belief system married to intense personal ambition, both expressed through the book.
@pm @jfarmer I think it is natural for someone like that to struggle to actually be objective even when he wants to be.
@pm @jfarmer I think the same is probably true of most of the rest of us. I'm sure it would be true of me if I were an academic economist.
@pm @jfarmer The problem I have is that ideological academic economists who screw these things up can really screw up the world, i.e. Marx.
@pm @jfarmer Arguably economists' work matters even more than the work of e.g. nuclear physicists. Should be subjected to highest scrutiny.

2 months ago ago via Twitter

136

1/Posit: All viral content headlines are simply lies.
2/You WILL believe what happened next.
3/Six things about X that you ACTUALLY DON'T need to know.
4/This will NOT change your life.
5/Something someone said that will NOT leave you speechless.
6/A person did this thing and it's NOT weirdly mesmerizing.
7/The happiest people in the world do NOT actually do this.

2 months ago ago via Twitter

137

1/Thesis: "Do what you love" / "Follow your passion" is dangerous and destructive career advice.
2/We tend to hear it from (a) Highly successful people who (b) Have become successful doing what they love.
3/The problem is that we do NOT hear from people who have failed to become successful by doing what they love.
4/Particularly pernicious problem in tournament-style fields with a few big winners & lots of losers: media, athletics, startups.
5/Better career advice may be "Do what contributes" -- focus on the beneficial value created for other people vs just one's own ego.
6/People who contribute the most are often the most satisfied with what they do -- and in fields with high renumeration, make the most $.
7/Perhaps difficult advice since requires focus on others vs oneself -- perhaps bad fit with endemic narcissism in modern culture?
8/Requires delayed gratification -- may toil for many years to get the payoff of contributing value to the world, vs short-term happiness.

2 months ago ago via Twitter

138

1/Since people asked, a quick summary of my own views about economic development over the next several decades:
2/We need a lot more economic growth for the benefit of everyone, including and especially for lower-income people here and everywhere.
3/We also need a lot more technological advancement and productivity improvements for the benefit of everyone, again including the poorest.
4/Further, the good news story of our time is the global rise of billions of people out of poverty. We need this to continue, not reverse.
5/Theories and policies that push us backwards toward more stasis, stagnation, and statism are both counterproductive and immoral.
6/None of this is to dismiss the wrenching consequences that individuals may experience during a time of rapid economic change.
7/For that reason, it is both sensible and moral to couple full-throttle technological capitalism with a strong, rigorous social safety net.
8/And in fact, rapid economic growth and technological progress is precisely what makes a strong, rigorous social safety net affordable.
9/We can in fact have our cake and eat it too. Last 500 years have clearly shown that democratic capitalism is a non-zero-sum phenomenon.

2 months ago ago via Twitter

139

That Piketty's analysis collapsed when subjected to clear-eyed external review is not, unfortunately, surprising: http://t.co/yL1lNUFuwI
Peer review is not sufficient to ensure good science. http://t.co/JS5nav69bS http://t.co/bYVkuCoY4C http://t.co/LweLdxB1aa
Reproducibility in science is like fact-checking in journalism. Both are clearly required, yet either happening is extremely rare.
Perhaps a hippocratic oath for economists and social scientists is needed: Hold off on the sweeping theories until analyses are verified.

2 months ago ago via Twitter

140

@bryankchang Yep, we had that too :-).
@bryankchang The major change is that "product management" as a function has been shortened to simply "product".
@bryankchang It's a little like the running joke that "a data scientist is a statistician in San Francisco" :-).
@bryankchang ... "A head of product is a head of product management in San Francisco."

2 months ago ago via Twitter

141

1/A tweetstorm in four parts: The "superpowers" metaphor for how new technologies enhance human capabilities.
2/New technologies can be thought of as giving people superpowers -- superhuman abilities that humans did not have before.
3/First, let's think about historical technologies through this lens. Starting with man-made fire: superpower to heat and cook things.
4/Electric lighting = superpower to be active and productive even when the sun is down. AC = superpower to act/produce when too hot.
5/Steam power and mechanical engines = superpower to exert physical effort in the world way beyond human or animal muscles.
6/Planes, trains, and automobiles = superpower to travel far faster than feet, animals, or wind could previously carry us.
7/Telegraph & telephone = superpower to communicate faster and cheaper than messages could be physically carried.
8/Threshing machines, combines, and tractors = superpower to grow far more food than we could by hand.
9/And of course there are destructive superpowers: guns and bombs enable killing far more people than we could by hand.
10/For 500+ years, we've collectively been radically enhancing capabilities of ordinary humans through technology superpowers.
Although this isn't open to the public, we'll be live-tweeting using #vmwSotS. See you on Twitter! @MelissaLeeCNBC @vmware @pmarca @stanford — (RT @vmwarenews)

2 months ago ago via Twitter

142

@JMBruh No problem :-). I wish I knew. My preferred answer is to promote more competition in the last mile.
@JMBruh Get 5-way competition going: cable vs telco vs Google Fiber vs mobile carrier vs Wifi+++.
1/Since people asked, my own "strong views weakly held" personal stance on Net Neutrality:
2/We need to somehow both retain permissionless Internet innovation & telcos ability to get return on capital for network investment.
3/My preferred policy route would center on promoting regulation/deregulation and incentives for more last-mile broadband competition.
4/I see the potential for at least 5-way last-mile broadband competition, at least in non-rural areas:
5/A: cable, B: telco, C: Google Fiber, D: mobile carrier networks LTE & beyond, and E: Wifi and future derivatives.
6/There are a whole bunch of things that could accelerate and enhance C, D, and E. We should identify and do those things asap.
7/One key topic is wireless spectrum; need to get a lot more in the hands of both mobile carriers and into unlicensed classification.
8/Wifi in particular seems underestimated: If a lot more/different spectrum were available, could go much faster & longer range.
9/In addition there are a variety of new ideas including satellites/drones, Steve Perlman's DIDO, etc.; we should warmly embrace those.
10/With sufficient local competition, regulatory pressure much reduced: If one provider plays games, consumers can switch to another.

2 months ago ago via Twitter

143

1/Topics that anyone who wants to take a position on Net Neutrality and the current FCC issues should thoroughly understand:
2/History, technology, and economics of backbones, interconnection agreements, peering, CDNs, caching, colocation.
3/Current and future telco and cable business models including capex and opex models, rate caps, cost of capital, return on investment.
4/History, structure, and case law of FCC regulatory framework, including Acts of 1934 and 1996, Title II common carrier rules, et al.
5/Technology and economics of competitive entrants: Google Fiber, mobile carriers LTE & beyond, Wifi & derivatives, and satellites & drones.
6/Technology, economics, and culture of permissionless Internet innovation at each layer of the stack, contrasted vs prior platform regimes.
7/Side note: I don't think I know anyone who understands all of these topics in depth. I know I don't.

2 months ago ago via Twitter

144

@aresnick No, I mean the opposite. Costs wouldn't be rising in non-productive fields if productivity was broken in other fields.
@aresnick I.e. if return to skill was dropping, then that would mean productivity was dropping in fields where prod & comp are linked...
@aresnick ...and then Baumol's Disease would no longer be a problem for non-productivity-growing fields like education and healthcare.
@aresnick I.e. you can't have Baumol's Disease in some fields without having rising productivity & compensation in other fields.

2 months ago ago via Twitter

Marc Andreessen — @pmarca

On MOOCs

On disruption theory