I'd argue the intersection of these sets is a lot higher than you'd expect in the Valley. Mr. Katta may be looking to attract the attention of these people, which are often influential investors or otherwise well connected.
Google is not a car company. I don't see how that would be good for either of them. A joint venture seems more likely. Money is only part of the equitation and Elon Musk actually want's to change the status quo so we don't suffocate with CO2. Assimilation politics would not further that goal.
A collaboration would be very beneficial for both parties though. Tesla and Google could focus on what they can do best and bring out a product in a joint venture that unifies they're strength sharing the profit.
They are a technology company. I think Google should keep Tesla separate, and with very subtle non-intrusive brand insertion - e.g. "Just a company Google owns" They would collaborate too. Everything you say is true, and no reason that should stop Google from buying them. Especially since Google's getting into self-driving car and Google Glass-technology, etc..
They are developing the technology to make car self-driving. They are not developing the cars. They use Toyota Prius and I think some Lexus model too. I could see them partnering with Tesla to make it the first company to use the technology though.
Google's not a phone company either, but they sell phones. Why would you not expect them to sell cars when they're obviously dumping so much money into auto technology?
Because that auto technology is not meant for users. It's meant for them to get a more accurate and up-to-date street view for Maps. Android is an extremely user-facing technology, and furthers their efforts to control as much of the mobile ecosystem as possible.
Buying Motorola to support their growth in mobile makes sense. Buying a car company to support a side project doesn't make any sense.
Facebook's social graph data is the closest digital form replication of our offline true social graph. Our true social graph is what affects every single innate decision and action we make and take, as well as structuring the way we are influenced.
While Facebook isn't a "news" platform, it is, however, a platform in its beginning stages (albeit, highly advanced) that shows you "content" that is most relevant to you - through the usage of the replicated social graph.
And you're right, I wouldn't ever go to state that "curated content" (if done right) will leave anytime soon, but the implicit personalization of everything on the web will become reality and nothing will nor should be static content.
"Our true social graph is what affects every single innate decision and action we make and take, as well as structuring the way we are influenced."
This simply isn't true. If I decide not to go to the beach because it rained, I just based my decision on something that has zero to do with my "true social graph."
I think this might actually be where your deeper mistake in reasoning is - the assertion that relevancy is based solely on your social graph. The fact that this is NOT so is exactly why Facebook does NOT show me content that is most relevant to me - it simply shows me content that was shared or created by my friends and family. That in and of itself doesn't make it relevant to me. It simply means: "hey here is a piece of content and you happen to know the makers of or someone who likes it."
The tricky part is determining what relevancy really means. I think this changes in different contexts.
And finally, I also simply cannot agree with this statement as it stands: "implicit personalization of everything on the web will become reality and nothing will nor should be static content." I really do hope that the latest New York Times article on the conflict in Mali is the same text regardless of whether you are I read it - i.e. that it's static and doesn't change.
I think reality is a bit more nuanced than what sweeping statements allow for.
Yeah, I didn't do a great job conveying my perspective on what makes the true social graph. I don't believe social graph is just people. It's literally everything around you. Everything from TV show or broadcast you're watching or news you're hearing to even the environment and setting around us which is the weather.
Everything in life is connected - and that's the graph.
Mission is rather small, I'm not sure it can be subdivided further into communities.
In general I recommend the block delimited by castro st. on the west, valencia st. on the east, market st. on the north and 24th st on the south. The parts west of mission st. and north of 24th are more sketchy.
I would suggest investing in a few day stay in SF to check out various parts - after all what is sketchy to me might be colorful to you (or vice versa) i.e. you can't assume that your taste will match the taste of people giving recommendations here.
