Within a couple years this exact scenario will play out. A gunmen will talk in a crowded place loaded to the gills. Assault rifles, bullet proof vest, explosives hid around the building. He will pull out his gun and kill the poor unsuspecting first soul. After that initial shot someone with a concealed weapons permit is going to blow his brains out cutting his rampage short ( I truly hope the person who plays the hero is a little old lady packing heat in her purse).
The point was that "he with the gun holds the power" in those situations. And I'm sure the person with the gun feels like that. Make the odds of him having his tables turned on him by respectable law abiding citizens, and suddenly he'll be more afraid to do harm.
As a side note, she shouldn't shoot for the head anyway, especially if the bullet is going to go propelling out of the man. That's a great way to have unintended collateral damage.
That guy was working security at the event and was a trained (ex-)LEO. Most people who have their fantasies about using their concealed weapon to save the day don't have nearly that much training or preparation.
How will common small arms deal with a determined gunman with assault protection gear, esp. in a chaotic, high stress situation like that? We would be better off finding a way to lessen and stop these kinds of events from occurring.
To build a business it takes someone who either understands the particular nuances of that particular business from their prior history or are capable of picking it up very quickly and effective on the fly. at im saying there's not value in testing a theory and not over analyzing, but an effective idea guy is necessary to truly disrupt a market.
To win at disrupting, you have to understand a market as its currently is, all of its inefficiencies and weaknesses combined with future changes in capabilities and technology. However usually an engineer as likely to be an effective idea guy, combined with their ability to build and ship it puts them at an advantage. Great idea guys are rare, but when they surround themselves with the proper technical talent its a thing to behold . Tarantino, Jobs, list is endless
So, if I'm understanding correctly, you'd be looking for a particular market/industry insight in a business person like that. You'd be looking for experience, deep understanding and successes in that industry.
Is that more or less correct?
It also follows that without any track record, it's really hard to trust that a "business guy" will know how to contribute, and so you're taking someone on faith alone. It's kind of like hiring a developer who can't prove that he's ever written code before.
FB already got their $16 billion. If your in it for the long term, uproar away that nest egg should be able to last a while. Check ins, ads, app platform, lots of monetization strategies. The only people burned are short term investors who buy in at a bad time. FB ONLY potential problem is losing RELEVANCE. You don't lose users by not monetizing mobile, but you can lose users by monetizing mobile however. Short/steady wins the race, especially with 16 billion in the bank
When your stealing a billion from the public (you know the company is going to plummet and you accounting methods r more similar to a drug dealer then GAAP) its best to wear a tie, less suspicious that way
Sorry If I may have came off as an ass with the post. The point I was trying to make is that I truly didnt get any feedback on my product, besides the point of lack of market validation. IN my executive statement I sent a link to my beta, which he didnt visit until I was on the phone with him. Market validation is important, but I feel that id you have a functional beta as well as a concept or plan the least you can so is go through it b4 saying lack of market validation is the end all be all.
I rarely see a VC or incubator read the entire statement or much less click through to a beta. They care about numbers. You could have the next Google or FB but if you can't show that people will (or are) using it then what's the point? For me, I had to do an alpha test w/75 users and I have hundreds in my private beta and have tons of articles and market research to show traction and I still get questions about "enough traction". Just think about it from the VC perspective: "How much am I going to get back on my return" That's ALL they care about. That's all they should care about. Plus, its not up to them to give you feedback. You need to get people on your product and ask them for feedback, iterate based on their feedback and then start shopping it around to people in your space and get their feedback. After that, you go to investors.
None of this is PG's fault. I only made that the title of the post, because the financial analyst I talked to said the local fund I applied to said one of the reasons I wasnt eligible is that I applied to YCOMBINATOR. I meant this as a post to show whats wrong with the start up scene in most of the country. I feel that PG and ycombinator are part of the solution not the problem