Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit | socalnate1's comments login

Isn't this just what AOL was in the US in the 1990's? When the "open" internet got better than the walled garden AOL provided, people switched. But AOL was a critical step in getting the masses onto the internet in the first place.

Isn't this just what AOL was in the US in the 1990's? When the "open" internet got better than the walled garden AOL provided, people switched. But AOL was a critical step in getting the masses onto the internet in the first place.

The minimum wage is just really inefficient way to help people. I'd much rather see a large increase in the earned income tax credit (which directly helps those who need it most, without the distorting effects of a minimum wage) or an introduction of a basic income system.

-----


How is the Earned Income Tax Credit not an economic distortion? One could easily argue that it's a form of welfare to business as much as to people, with the government picking up the slack for employers who won't pay adequate wages. Minimum wage laws can indeed a challenge for small businesses and filter through to consumer prices, but wages are not the biggest or only expense most businesses face, and the pleas of poverty from many business owners do not stand up to rigorous scrutiny.

-----


It may not be the biggest, or only expense, but it is the largest controllable expense for most retail and restaurants.

-----


Who cares? He identifies that he was given the product for free in all these reviews.

-----


I care, how do I get in on a gig like that? :-)

-----


"...instead of teaching geography and foreign language classes separately, teachers will ask kids to name countries on a map in a foreign language. Instead of separate lessons on history and economics, they'll talk about the European Union."

It's depressing that this is considered "radical."

-----


I think consciously maintaining a collective categorization of entities, or independently maintaining a collective categorization of entities is radical. More people might discover abstract math on their own, simply because it hasn't been purified down to it's symbolic form. The relationships naturally arise out of our own decisions and plans in how we mentally construct relationships between entity forms, and notice the differences and variations between person to person.

I think tradition is important, but so is learning how to think totally differently in a fundamental way - and I think that's what these educators see in this specific case as radical. They see it as a creating a foundation of how to think first, then it is followed by lesson plans. It may affect the way people learn to organize and think about information, or it may not. Maybe people in the future will refine information down to essential subject form, because the chaos in connectivity between information forms has become too complex to reason about, and consequently becomes too complex to do anything with (aside from think). These things happen already. The difference is a magnitude of scale. Will an entire generation be raised with these characteristics?

-----


He turned this into a book: http://www.amazon.com/Driving-Mr-Albert-America-Einsteins/dp...

-----


"you should not be allowed to just have another go at it."

Yes you should. Since when did we get the idea that failing at something (even spectacularly) should preclude you from trying again? Nearly everyone who reads HN has benefited enormously from the mindset that allows entrepreneurs to keep trying.

-----


The entrepreneurs you're talking about lose a lot more when they fail in the real world. Networking contacts, trust, even become bankrupt. This company literally just moves on to the next product like it's nothing with no repercussions. Failing at something is fine, being naive and irresponsible with other people's money - without repercussion - is not.

-----


> This company literally just moves on to the next product like it's nothing with no repercussions.

You just flatly assert that. Is it actually true? I don't know, but surely they've at least got their reputation, with backers and others, from this failed product.

> Failing at something is fine, being naive and irresponsible with other people's money - without repercussion - is not.

You're failing to acknowledge that kickstarter backers know -- or should know -- the risk. It's their choice to back a particular project.

-----


You're right, but on the other hand it should be a little harder so that you can't make a habit of dumping the loss onto others. For example, it might be reasonable to be barred from crowdfunding websites going forward, and have to raise money through other channels like regular VCs.

-----


It appears that this company is taking the "lessons they learned" and the intellectual property they developed from spending $400,000 of other peoples' money on R&D to get VC investments for their next thing. They've taken other peoples' money and turned it into personal gain while giving nothing back in return. This isn't behavior anyone should encourage.

-----


If there are people who are willing to give them more money to try again, why should the rest of us have any say in it? I probably wouldn't fund them myself, but if there's some investor who is fully aware of what happened here and still wants to fund them, I don't see a reasonable basis to object.

If they aren't lying to anybody, where exactly is the problem?

-----


The $400,000 they spent is now, effectively, an investment into their future product line. It's not a surprise that VCs see that $400,000 of free R&D isn't valueless. The actual individuals who funded this investment will see 0% of the return on it, while the company that fucked up plans on profiting from the software, hardware, and niche-specific expertise they developed while not delivering anything.

-----


Well, to be honest, Kickstarter is not a shop. Even though nowadays it's mostly a marketing tool, it's original idea was to be a way to invest in ideas you like. That is, take a risk with your money.

-----


I think the idea here is that Kickstarter investors are NOT aware and are easily hoodwinked. Why, even this project appears to have been a lie- it's just that the founders were lying to themselves, too.

The assumption being that the Kick starter investors ought to essentially be protected a little against their own gullability.

This of course all serves as a nice allegory of how rules requiring accreditation for some types of investment were born.

-----


Trying again is perfectly fine. Trying again with other people's money is perhaps less fine.

-----


Not all of the price of gasoline is derived from the price of crude oil. Some of the price is from taxes, transportation and refinery costs which have not changed. (The exact ratios vary depending on where you live).

-----


"There a deep emotional issues causing your anxiety, probably from your childhood."

Um, what?

-----


Err... Didn't Internet Explorer have 90% browser share 10 years ago? (i.e. Microsoft achieved exactly what this post is warning against?)

And yet, somehow we aren't all living in a Microsoftian dystopia.

-----


It did. But Microsoft disbanded the IE team after they won that marketshare, which gave other browsers years to catch up.

Things may have looked very different had they continued the heavy development pace after releasing IE6. IE had a fast and modern engine compared to contemporaries when IE6 was first released, but then it went five years without any major updates.

I'm undecided about Google's growing browser control, but in any case I don't see Google making the same mistakes as Microsoft.

-----


they did stall the internet as a development target for at least 5 years

-----


Browser share is only part of the puzzle. Microsoft didn't also own several of the most popular sites on the web. See callahad's comment for more detail (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8151400).

-----


Microsoft could afford to get complacent as IE was not their primary driver of profits. Google being an advertising company - it needs to control users through it's browser to gather more data and build algorithms to use that data, which will be eventually sold to advertisers. The two situations are not comparable at all.

-----


And yet, now we hear people complaining that everybody should just run WebKit, while at the same time whining about needing to hack around IE6.

-----


Yeah, and then Firefox came along.

-----


O_o

-----

More

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: