Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:So much stupid (Score 1) 258

by halivar (#48215695) Attached to: We Need Distributed Social Networks More Than Ello

TFA's point was that the products that end up "winning" in the market are not necessarily better than their competitors by these objective standards.

Then those objective measures do not actually indicate consumer value, which is what we're really talking about when we say "best".

Off the top of my head, some of the "famous for being famous" celebrities come to mind.

Most celebutants do indeed crash and burn. We see it all the time. A fool and his money, and all that. If you refer to Kim Kardashian and Paris Hilton, then as much as I am loath to say this, they are brilliant marketers offering a product that their intended market simply can't get enough of. Lindsay Lohan and Amanda Bynes lacked this business acumen, so they turned into cautionary tales. I predict Miley Cyrus will join them soon.

The more important point is that many people who "bust their balls" and work hard do not succeed. And the reasons why are, in many cases, at least partially stochastic. I think that was all that TFA was saying.

Failure is a part of risk, and risk is the key to success. Most success stories begin with a string of failures. We bust our balls through our failures and keep going until we succeed. Do you accept a resume rejection with a sigh of acceptance and resignation? No; you keep applying until you get an interview. It's just how it works.

Comment: So much stupid (Score 4, Insightful) 258

by halivar (#48214841) Attached to: We Need Distributed Social Networks More Than Ello

The problem with this recent crop of op-ed's is that it gives the editors the perfect to show off how much they don't know or understand. For instance, the pot-shot at Randian capitalism (disclaimer: I'm no fan of Rand and I'm pretty sure she would hate my guts) tells me that he has never actually read Ayn Rand, and if he did, did not understand what he was reading.

the products that are the most successful are not necessarily the best, by any objective measure

There IS no objective measure. One man's trash, yadda yadda yadda. The most successful products meet the most demand at the most sustainable price and supply. Period.

And since you cannot manufacture a lucky break

Bullshit. No one gets sucess by happy accident and remains so. Lottery winners lose their money within months. The coolest invention with a bad business model goes kaput. The richest tech guys toiled in a basement or garage or dorm room for years on end before they got their break. No one succeeds without busting their balls and working hard. Luck plays a factor. Luck can open a window, but it can't make you successful.

As long as the product itself is functional, just have the right connections lined up when you launch it. Because that's what matters, and don't let the deluded ghost of Ayn Rand tell you otherwise.

I don't even know what to make of this ignorant word salad. Pick up a book and read it sometime.

Comment: Re:More changes I don't want ... (Score 4, Insightful) 172

by halivar (#48205599) Attached to: Google Announces Inbox, a New Take On Email Organization

I don't see any reason to eschew experimentation simply for the sake of familiarity. The old inbox will always be around; if not at Google, then at a competitor. You lose nothing. And for every hundred failed ideas, there's one gem that changes how we think about something forever.

Air is water with holes in it.