As a founder, I have three levels of responsibility. A responsibility for every individual I hire, which I respect to the maximum I can. On top, a responsibility for the team into which I hire an individual. On top, a responsibility for the company which I am building.

I've lost teams. I will fire any individual who will endanger a team by sabotaging it or not carrying the same weight as the others.

I've lost a company. I fill fire any team who will endanger my current org.

The larger the company, the longer the process. We got into Amazon as a supplier only because they figured it would take them at least a year until they would have hired the first person starting to tackle the topic internally…

No, if a group of Republicans decided to go on a lynch (maybe while dressed in white cloths) I would consider them a terrorist organization, even if they only targeted the race of people who attacked their race

> * The SEC can designate professional certifications from accredited institutions as a surrogate for wealth --- to begin with, FINRA Series 7, 65, and 82.

It seems like an oddly American thing to me that investors can actually use wealth as a surrogate for professional certifications.

It makes sense in this instance, as the rule is designed to minimize the number of people whose lives will be ruined (and thrown to the state to support) by bad investing decisions, and the asset requirement both minimizes the likelihood of any one investor losing their shirt, and minimizes the number of investors. And again: the real teeth in this rule are about who issuers can market securities to, not about what random people are allowed to do.

No, it’s not about bad investing decisions. It’s about prevent bad actors perpetrating fraud on unsuspecting victims.

Bad investing decisions have always and will always be allowed.

This seems to really be a pattern with Amazon. Their sweet spot is doing Zero to One by watching what goes off and then leveraging their size for a Second Mover Advantage.

Once something sticks to the wall, they are absolutely ruthless at getting it to product-market fit and commercial success, but interestingly enough, they stop there and all further development is merely iterative. They usually have some of the first decent and usuable products in any market, but tend to go for full commercial exploitation and pure maintenance mode from there.

Redshift used to be an absolute game changer for the Big Data market (I still remember their 1 TB for under 999$/month claim to this day), but Snowflake or BigQuery are just much better products this day and they never made the architectural shift from the client/server based architecture.

Prime Video is an absolute success story despite their awful interface, UX and crappy metadata, just because they got a grip on the hardware, smartly cross-sold it and bought / produced some good & free content.

I could go on and on, but it seems to be company core DNA to stop at 80/20. Whether that's a good thing or not, I'm still unsure.

Maybe because Bezos stops being involved and there is nobody inside the company who dares to change whatever Bezos has implemented?

Reading the tweets, it seems like Bezos made all the important decisions. If he is not around because he is focussed on other projects, who could do it instead? Judging by the story that Bezos didn't allow any pixel to be changed on the Amazon homepage, I can imagine that this is a pattern and whoever tried to implement a change doesn't dare to try it again.

Prime video seems to have fleshed out its content with a lot of old, obscure, niche documentaries. Fortunately, I like old, obscure, niche documentaries and enjoy watching them. Netflix seems to stick with only mainstream content.

From my experience at Amazon, products launch, and then the team starts building the next thing, and the previous thing only gets mandatory attention from then on. There was always just too much to work on to completely polish anything.

Interestingly enough, this Torrence Boone guy working now at Google seems to have had lots of success keeping his #1 SERP clean. His LinkedIN tells us he worked as "Global CEO" at an unnamed agency before, he got zero recommendations, but is now Vice President at Google.

Now comes the interesting part: Google won't even autocomplete "torrence boone enfatico" — Shame upon him who thinks evil upon it...

If you've been wondering about the moral decline at Google, this is the kind of people they hired as top management.

Is hiring privacy-conscious people a sign of moral decline?

I'd argue that it's a quite good idea to keep your LinkedIn profile looking exactly like that, unless you've decided that you need a good-looking profile right now for "advertising" because you're looking for a job, and you're going to use LinkedIn for that, which many job-seekers won't do.

If you'd be working in defence or infosec, I'd be with you about being a little more diligent about too many details in your employment history.

Then again, it's not like he's shy about clearly lining up all of his jobs before the Enfatico disaster or his Harvard/Stanford alma maters.

It doesn't auto complete on DDG either, so I don't know if that would even be like popular enough to auto complete? I just read the AdWeek article that came up first in it and it's from like 2010.

> But I only want just the _legitimate_ ICO ads to remain.

I‘m sorry to bring you the news, but there aren‘t any.

Oh, and just in case there are, the crypto ecosystem implosion happening this year will drag them along to the bottom of the pool together with all the scams.

Reminds me of the dot com boom with tons of $noun.com companies of which the vast majority were worthless. But there were some true innovations, and those gems survived the crash. Had we lumped them all together and prohibited any of their advertisement, they may have never succeeded.

Often the significant innovations don't need to advertise. I didn't use the early Google because I saw an ad for it and I don't think Etherium did paid ads for their launch.

Ethereum is a good example. Look at all these poor Ethereum clones that ICO the shit out of their eth chain copy cat. Same shit we saw with the Altcoins craze some years ago.

The names that stay are those that speak for them self through revolutionizing Technologie.

Oh no it won't, that genie isn't going back into the bottle. Cryptos are here to stay, and they will continue growing for decades.

Sorry to be the party pooper, but Advertisers can and do target individual users on Snapchat by simple means of uploading mobile Ad IDs.

So while Snap takes the high road here and tells people they're not bleeding or collecting information on their users (which is true), what they don't say is that still all the info that has been bleeding from mobile users through any other of their weather and emoji apps can and will be used against them in Snapchat Advertising campaigns.

If they didn't play along, they'd be quickly out of any media planners' heads, and they're already struggling hard against Facebook in the ad ecosystem.

Source: I do this stuff for business. Throwaway obviously.

Thank you for sharing! That is disheartening to hear, but it is still miles better than what other social media companies do. It's more the mass collection, analysis, and potentially sale of data that concerns me about social networks.

I'm a founder too and had a story similar to yours. There's much more to working at a company than cash and equity: Learning fast, good people around you, climbing up the career ladder much faster, freedom and autonomy.

It's just when you've got neither of these perks that you should start searching - because if you don't have that side either, you could as well go to a high paying corporate job. And then I'm on the side of the employees: Loyalty is important, but it's not a one-way street.

Soundcloud is out there for several years raising rounds with great expectations (meaning high valuations) and still hasn't found a business model yet. They've lost a lot of high class tech talent such as Peter Bourgon. Users stay stagnant, no exit in sight. If you have equity, count it as zero, as latest at the next round, liq prefs will be so high there won't be much left for employees. If I were you, I'd start looking in any case.