I really love it when people carry jokes into serious business and take it all the way to the end. There's a lot of guts in that. I envy that level of self-confidence and hope to one day get there myself.
That said, somehow I love it even more when such jokes get featured on HN and, invariably, shares of dry humorless grumpy people complain that they can't possibly take people who make jokes seriously. I always wonder what brings someone to distrust ballsy humor, I can't really wrap my head around it.
Personally, if someone has the guts to not only make a silly joke with friends over a beer, but actually turn it into a real thing (in this case, a venture fund), then that's the kind of person I want to do business with. That sort of guts shows elsewhere too (Elon Musk is a nice example).
Having spent so much time with flask, it's a joke that I took seriously enough :)
Edit: forgot that HN also lacks Markdown besides humour
Chtulhu Ventures seems to be far more invested in the the good of mankind than the average SF VC.
Comedy name for a VC firm on a site where people hope they can get VC cash for their "it's the Uber of XYZ industry" start-up?
"Epic lulz sir! Taking jokes into the business world is brave!"
Cthulhu Ventures llc
100 Shoreline Hwy • Suite B280
Mill Valley, CA 94941
Tel: 415-444-9602 • Fax: 415-444-9602
info at cthulhuventures.com
I get that one of the founders really likes Lovecraft, but spend some money and do the website right instead of finding cthulu pictures off of google images and pasting them into a template.
>Parents can use Life360 to track their teen’s location in real time. The company can use that data to sell car insurance.
I think apps which allow parents to monitor their kids and invade their privacy are bad for humanity.
Hastur 2020: Who but that which is already the yellow king?
He's standing for Prime Minister of the UK, but in his views, that doesn't disqualify him from running for president too. No "dirty laundry", so to speak.
Cthulhu for President. Why settle for the lesser evil?
I haven't read it yet, so I'm curious if it's somewhat dated, or tame according to modern sensibilities.
It mostly holds up, but the proliferation of the themes explored by it and the memeification of Cthulu and the "Great Old Ones" does probably make it more tame than reading it without foreknowledge of the contents.
You can find most of Lovecraft's works (and some of his ghostwriting) as audiobooks on youtube if you want to give them a try .
John Dies at the End might be a good read, though keep in mind it is also comedic (so dark comedy), so if you're looking for that serious horror tone then you might want to look elsewhere.
My friends have played a video game called Bloodborne and they claim it's the best cosmic horror story they have seen. Supposedly to really get the story though, you have to either spend a lot of time trying to piece it out by playing it, or just read/watch a synopsis.
Synopsis if you're interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjWOy6ioVHI&feature=emb_logo
All Hail, Cthulhu!
If your comment is based on diversity of gender, it seems to run afoul of several "diversity" tenets I was just taught:
- It infers their physical gender based on their appearance.
- It conflates physical gender with gender identity.
- It infers race based on physical appearance.
- It infers ethnicity based on apparent race.
- If brings up the topic of those particular persons' races, ethnicities, physical gender, and perhaps gender identities, when you can't be sure they want them to be discussed.
I'm not trying to be snarky with this comment. I genuinely don't understand what it is that the diversity-advocating crowd is advocating regarding acceptable discussion.
Humans have to make basic baseline assumptions when interacting with people. This is normal, and there is no majority voice in the community that advocates for increasing diversity that is saying you can't do this. The 'DID YOU JUST ASSUME MY GENDER?' stuff is is an out of the norm reaction that has largely been co-opted into a meme by those that are against increased diversity as an attempt to ridicule it. The same with the 'identifying as an attack helicopter' crap. There are definitely extreme voices, but they are a small minority.
The goal for those who are pushing for diversity and continuing to combat sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. is not to alienate everyone and force them to never believe anything about someone's race, gender, etc. unless explicitly informed. The goal is to make sure you respect that sometimes appearances don't match reality.
I have a lot of good friends. Some of them happen to be trans. I have never seen any of them get upset at someone who misgendered them prior to transition, as long as they made an effort to correctly gender them after being informed. During transition, largely the same. Post-transition it's usually quite obvious, but I still see them exercise patience, at least at first, if the person's demeanor isn't hostile.
As for bringing up the topics - they might not want to rehash it with you, or anyone. That means that if they ask you to drop it or are otherwise expressing discomfort with the subject, do so. Don't debate it right around them (and I'm guilty of this one!). But that doesn't mean don't discuss the issues. They can ignore comment threads on the internet they don't want to read, and those of us not facing those issues need to be cognizant of them and discuss them. In person, not so much - especially in the workplace, where they might not have any way to escape the discussion.
The goal isn't to be the thought police. The goal is to be courteous to others.
Recognizing that people have different life experiences based on their gender, race, etc. is not racist. The goal is not homogenizing everyone and everything. You cannot recreate that sort of diversity within a single group. That isn't to say there isn't diversity within that group - obviously there is. But the idea that you can have more diversity in a group made up of all white men than one that has a larger mix of genders, races, and ethnicities is, if I'm being totally honest, absurd in its basic premise.
Understanding that there are differences between people isn't racist. I cannot respect cultural differences that I refuse to see because I'm "colorblind." I can't respect different life experiences and difficulties faced if I refuse to see them. I can't accept differing inputs that are fundamentally based on those different life experiences if I am unable to modulate my treatment of someone based on who they are.
It's a common misconception that the way to beat racism, sexism, etc. is to be "colorblind" or "genderblind" - but it isn't. One size fits all approaches are fundamentally flawed, and ultimately result in the group in power attempting to force everyone else to conform to their mold. This isn't exclusive to white men - it's just generally the group in power wherever they are. You see the same behavior with different outcomes all over the world, so I'm not framing this as a "white men are bad". You have to treat people fairly - I should pay a black person as much as a white person - but if the topic of racial issues in America comes up, I should take the input of the black person over that of a white person. If I was in Japan and that came up vis a vis treatment of foreigners there, I should take the input of the white person over the Japanese person.
Fair treatment means equal treatment in many ways, but not all of them. Some experiences and viewpoints are impossible to recreate if you are not part of that group. That diversity can never be recreated by a homogenous group.
(There's a very large body of research on this. Hundreds of studies. I have picked two based on them being high on my google results, but if you really want I can link dozens or hundreds more.)
"Our goal, as Cthulhu, is to support initiatives designed to rise from the dark depths of R’lyeh (metaphorically speaking!) and end up destroying or at least disrupting, some market paradigm."
As its opening line does not exude professionalism.
This is consistent with the experience of a lot of children who are better off trying to handle certain things themselves rather than telling their parents or teachers. It's also consistent with how terribly homosexuals (among others) were punished by the authorities for simply existing probably around the time of the birth of this fictional mythos.
The company positioning fairly openly acknowledges that a successful startup is "a destroyer of worlds." Wildly succeeding with a disruptive new tech creates a new reality that may or may not have its good points, but the old order is gone. The Cthulhu plreference is at a minimum left-handed acknowledgement that corporate culture is widely understood to be fundamentally uncaring and psychopathic.
This might actually be a perfectly healthy thing to embrace. Much evil in the world grows out of the need to have a good reputation which creates friction because looking good and doing good tend to part ways at some point. Being in the public eye comes with inherent moral challenges that are frequently glossed over in discussions that place an excess of importance on things like transparency.
Often, those critiquing the choices of people or entities in the public eye lack both the full story and first-hand experience with dealing with an equally uncaring and often openly hostile public that seeks to hold others to a standard it makes zero effort to pretend to try to meet itself.
Really, it doesn't seem to me that you're uncomfortable with mythical beasts per se. It's just this creature isn't part of the old, baseline culture. It isn't Greek/Roman/Chinese mythology. It's a part of the nerd subculture. That's what I think you're uncomfortable with.
Yes they do and that isn't a problem. There is a difference between using symbols and names and then branding your entire website with said things.
> From the other end, entrepreneurial scene is full of discussions about a particular mythical beast, the unicorn (as 'DoreenMichele pointed out upthread).
The link 'DoreenMichele sent is not the point. I don't care about signage I care about branding. Starbucks isn't using the Mermaid mythology in how it describes its company, it uses it as signage. That's fine no issues there.
Side note: I think the "unicorn" obsession in the tech sector is stupid and overrated. If a company advertises that it's looking for its next "unicorn-x" then I pretty much write them off.
> Really, it doesn't seem to me that you're uncomfortable with mythical beasts per se. It's just this creature isn't part of the old, baseline culture. It isn't Greek/Roman/Chinese mythology. It's a part of the nerd subculture. That's what I think you're uncomfortable with.
I think that's a pretty big leap to make. I have no issues with a company calling itself "Cthulu". I have an issue with how it is plastered all over the site and has even formed its mission statement around it.
Some people want to work with your faceless pristine professional top-heavy VC firm oozing with pedigree (McK,GS,Ivy galore) and some people want to roll the dice with people who aren't afraid to distinguish themselves from the culture of their herd and go hard (maybe too hard?) on something niche. So their branding is probably serving some use in self-selection and mindshare - I'm sure plenty of people will remember Cthulhu Ventures, for instance.
I'm ambivalent either way, I wouldn't judge too about this book based on its cover per se other than they've clearly thought about how they want the cover to be received which is a data point in and of itself. I suppose better that than not thinking about the cover whatsoever.
I remember TSR had an issue using hobbit in their D&D game.
Happy to maintain social paradigms though - only one woman on then entire team...