And this is called talking out of one's ass. It's easy to armchair quarterback from a cozy cubicle at Pando HQ. When you run an actual company, especially as a solo founder, you'll realize how thin your bandwidth gets stretched. Unless it's core, you adopt a 'cross that bridge when you get there' mentality. Which is exactly what Apoorva did here.
Seriously, once you go down the 'due diligence' road, there are a million things to check up on. Focus on the core to get up and running, fix things as they break and worry about the rest later.
Couldn't agree more. When you are a startup founder you are often times inventing a new way of doing something. Often there are no pre-written rules, you make them up as you go along and you find yourself doing things previously thought to be unthinkable. Most problems do have a work-around. I will not be surprised if in 2 weeks this founder solves this trivial problem by going to locally owned stores and working out a cash-flow arrangement (independently owned stores will be delighted by the lead-gen).
I would agree that it's easy to armchair quarterback but I think it's reasonable to say that this should have been expected or at least had come up in ANY standard analysis of potential risks when evaluating a startup that delivered alcohol. If you've bought alcohol, you would know that there are legal requirements to sell it. It's no different than considering other factors that could affect a delivery service like liability if your drivers get in a car accident or tax issues around reselling groceries, etc.
I'm in Houston, TX. When I searched for 'windshield repair houston', the 1st result - wwwDOThoustonwindshieldrepairDOTnet - looked promising so I made an appointment with them to get my windshield repaired. When I went to their place of business, it was just a guy in a pickup truck in the parking lot of a strip mall, with a 'windshield repair' sign on the back of the truck.
Turns out he's running a scam where he gets ppl to file claims with their insurance, and when they pay him, he would kickback 50% to the customer. Having insurance pay for damages is common enough, plenty of businesses do it. But this guy was trying to get me to file claims for damages that I didn't even have. When I asked for a cash price just to repair the damage I did have, he refused saying that 'it wasn't enough money'.
You're welcome. I did a little more digging and wwwDOTpatscowindshieldrepairDOTcom is a mirror site with the same info that's ranking for the same terms, and the backlink profile for this site also shows lots of paid backlinks.
He's not saying Guy is wrong. He's saying you're gonna have to come up with a more cogent argument than "He was right back then, and he's still right today". Basically, the burden of proof is on you since you made the original claim.
Actually, the math is not simple. Why are you assuming all 100 employees will donate $10? What if only 5 out of the 100 donate $10? In which case, the company donating $10 for every employee it has, regardless of whether they donated or not, will result in a higher amount.
The reason that "some ppl [sic] may not like it" is because it's logically unsound. Dismissing a point of view based on the party, rather than on the position, is the definition of a tu quoque fallacy.
P.S. I agree the author's web design isn't exactly "web 2.0" but it clearly does not diminish the author's credibility to comment on film colorization. They are completely separate.
Except that the original poster's comment was not a tu quoque fallacy. Note from your source:
This form of the argument is as follows:
A makes criticism P.
A is also guilty of P.
Therefore, P is dismissed.
In this instance "P" is "Hollywood color choices". The original poster did not dismiss P (i.e., a dismissal of P would be that Hollywood color choices are perfectly fine). The original poster dismissed the blog authors reputation to assert an opinion regarding Hollywood color choices because the blog author, by virtue of having made awful color choices in his blog, had presented evidence of lack of knowledgeable sufficient to assert an educated opinion about P (Hollywood color choices). Whether Hollywood color choices (P) are bad or good remains an open question, P was not dismissed.
Note further in your own citation:
The legitimate form of the argument is as follows:
A makes criticism P.
A is also guilty of P.
Therefore, A is dismissed (from his/her role as a model of the principle that motivates criticism P).
The difference from the illegitimate form is that the latter would try to dismiss P along with A. It is illegitimate to conflate the logically separate questions of whether P is a valid criticism and whether A is a good role model.
Which is exactly the use made by the original ironic/priceless comment. "A" (blog author) criticized "P" (poor color choices). "A" is also guilty of "P" (poor color choices). "A" was dismissed.
1. As another poster already said, "Readability and typography is not something someone who color grades deals with." EVEN IF I were to accept that this is not a tu quoque argument, the two skills are completely different. I am personally a web designer, and I have no basis or knowledge to comment on color grading in films. None.
Nevertheless, it's a moot point because...
2. I believe the original poster's comment, "physician, heal thyself" is a reference to a person (in this case, the author), and not to a position.
"The moral of the proverb is counsel to attend to one's own defects rather than criticizing defects in others, ..."
Or, in other words, before criticizing movie color defects, attend to his own web color defects.
> I am personally a web designer, and I have no basis or knowledge to comment on color grading in films.
Granted. But, would you say that your experience in web design and color selection would allow you sufficient knowledge to identify an absolutely awful movie color scheme? I would posit yes. The converse would also be true. Someone with movie color grading expertise should have sufficient knowledge of colors to at least make a reasonably passing effort at reasonable web color selection. I.e., the underlying basics apply and carry through in both arenas, even if the particular technical specifics differ.