RedRookDigital
- 47 comments
- 3 likes given
- 10 likes received
Bio not provided
@craigbutters at LEAST.
You had me conned just for a second. Well played, Pando. Well played.
Sarah, this is a great article.
Clearly founders will have a massive emotional investment in their companies. Startups are build on the vision, toil and persistence of the founders. On the positive side, this means an enduring passion to drive the business on, focus and commitment. The flip side of that is what happened with Jerry Yang. Decision making becomes so entrenched in emotive reaction that the business takes a hit to preserve the moral authority of the founder.
I'm glad Reid has come forward with this. I think it goes to a core distinction: the business is not the founder. The smart founder should be focused on the success of the business - that should be their core motivation, surely? They should be able to acknowledge a lack of experience, or skills going forward. More than that they should be able to separate their own ego from the future of their "baby" as a going concern. Certainly it's possible that a founder can grow with a business into an accomplished CEO, and there's masses of history of that. What I think we're starting to see now, and what Reid is talking around is acknowledgement that it isn't always the case.
There are, of course those founders that appoint external CEOs and the company goes from strength to strength (Sendgrid immediately springs to mind). That the discussion is happening now, and in positive terms is good news.
That's some good creative writing.
For those whom it affected, I will share my magical mantra, to be used only in times of dire emergency.
"Something will turn up, it always does."
You don't have to have hope, as much as to know that nothing is permanently immutable. Change is the only constant.
I always thought that was the point.
For every passionate and driven individual, there is the headstrong and deluded one. In my mind the crunching of numbers is the check and balance to the wild headlong charge some entrepreneurs make. Certainly it's a romantic ideal to find backers that have the same vision that you do, but honestly I'd find it just as comforting (if not more so) that someone whose primary concern is return on capital has independently and dispassionately evaluated my business and *agrees* it's likely to be successful. If the numbers aren't good then it's surely about the business establishing a bump in that research. If you make that indent successfully with the resources at hand, you'll find many more sources of funding becoming available. I suspect that having the neutral backer will also make you far more careful with your own expenditure.
"HR admins on a train" or "Catherine does dead dinosaurs".
Possibly a new tee design: "I'm the other WITN viewer" or similar :)
Congrats to all on one year. Long may it continue.
Interesting metaphor about childcare and business with regards to trusting your gut. ISTR Dr. Spock opens with 'Trust yourself, you know more than you think you do.' Possibly the same applies?
I hope everyone had a good festive period.
@sarahlacy @staciefrederick What I found interesting about that segment was that the disagreement was one of scale.
I think if Paul had said his desirable quality was a *passion about good writing* as opposed to a history of writing, or if Sarah had said that given two identically desirable candidates, she'd favour the one with the history of writing, there would have been less heat.
@sarahlacy @RedRookDigital That's my point exactly. We're presented with a Pando-filtered-and-condensed version of the original article in Pandostyle and Pandovoice. I remember Hamish staying up until ludicrous o'clock filtering, digesting and repackaging.
The issue as I see it is the [source: ]. That original source is NOT your idiom, it's TC's or Betabeat's or CNNs. I will, therefore, read the ticker (and follow it on Twitter) but I'm a lot less likely to view the original source.
That's an interesting WITN.
Paul, have you considered if the eventual model will be a monthly e-book 'subscription' with the daily / weekly offering providing updates and expansions? Essentially each writer or genre becomes their own e-book series, with the option to follow particular threads further on the site. Purchase of the e-book gives you access to that stream (somehow). That pushes you further down the publishing organisation route - but please remember not to go so far as 'platform'.
Sarah, I love the PandoTicker. I think it's biggest downside is that it's hosted on Pando. Bear with me with this - readers come to Pando for a particular style, ethos, standard etc. The Ticker is excellent for short bite-sized digests of what else is out there, but clicking on an origin story described in the ticker takes us away to another site. We get presented (indirected by Pando) with content created by a different organisation with a different voice and different journalistic standards. Often, for me, the summation is enough. I won't necessarily click through, but I do get value from the sidebar itself.
@eak4 @JenniferSiegler @DoraJenner @pud
when they got caught gouging, yes. Which invalidates the whole benevolency. That and it lasting a whole day.
@agarillon @AndySwan So "practiced altruism" is for the egotist's benefit, as opposed to altruism for the benefit of others with no expectation of personal benefit? The rational belief is that self sacrifice is wrong unless it is under the expectation of future greater personal benefit? (Again, genuinely asking if my understanding is correct)
@MattTrue Ok, I'll buy that, I wouldn't find it surprising that she'd write about what she perceived in the public domain. The issue with that must be that as a philosophy it is no longer *as* relevant, since it's so anachronistic.
@bennash @MattSchofield @RedRookDigital I disagree, that's unworkable unless everyone regulates themselves to the same degree. In industries with light regulation we've seen that that isn't the case.
@MattTrue You'd have to ask Paul directly, but my reading of it was that the "supermen"'s strike is not exceptional. Removal of either aspect causes collapse. Exemplifying the supermen ignores that their role is unexceptional. The perform a function in the same way the workers do, By ignoring that fact, and only considering the result of the removal of a single aspect, (again, my reading) Paul was saying was short sighted and deliberately obtuse.
@AndySwan Hi Andy, serious question - I thought Objectivism views altruism as the greatest evil possible, since it denied the most basic imperative of all life - to succeed and advance one's own interest.
How does that fit with helping those you love, or dealing with others as equals? Aren't you (by considering their needs, or using your own resources to better their lives) denying your own self interest?
You seem to have a genuine knowledge of the subject matter, and whilst (on first reading) Rand's views seem diametrically opposed to what I consider morally right, I'd like to know more to create a more informed opinion.
@MattTrue To clarify: you seemed to be under the misunderstanding that the article had said that the government was violating the rights of workers (in the same way that you described the "supermen" being). That wasn't what the article said. It said that Rand ignored the possibility of the same economic collapse in that eventuality, which you've agreed with.