Maybe I'm reading it incorrectly (IANAL) but that article left me thinking the mistake was signing the original deal with Sony. Does fair use actually cover what the platform did at at the time?
Except that time he intentionally sabotaged the 1968 peace talks to end the Vietnam War because he thought it might help him win an election. For reference, the war continued until late 1975. He is directly responsible for each and every casualty and atrocity committed in those 7 years, as well as the thousands upon thousands of irreparably mentally and emotionally damaged veterans that survived.
Divesting would actually be the more direct form of profiting from the status quo. Lock in the gains that the status quo created for you before the culture becomes so toxic the company folds. Keeping your holdings and releasing this letter is actually the bravest thing you could do as an investor.
Would you mind sharing an example or pointing me to a good guide that explains this concept? How does functional programming make a problem less complex than OO or imperative? I've heard this a couple of times, but the intuition has never quite clicked for me.
The correct version of the argument is that Facebook can afford to pay for extra bandwidth and reduced latency, but new market entrants cannot. Snapchat has plenty of funding.
It also has knock-on effects in the allocation of financial gains of successful startups. The more money required to launch/scale a company, the more likely it is that investors (capital) get a larger share of the profits than founders or employees (labor). That's not necessarily a direct reason to oppose/favor net neutrality, but is worth considering alongside all the other data points.
I have a really hard time putting much stock in metaphors that have so many components and work backwards from the metaphor to the real world. Too easy for the truth and usefulness of the advice to get stretched out to make the comment as a whole flow properly.
Uber/Airbnb/et al aren't still private just because there's some uncomfortable risk they're afraid will push away public investors. There's a whole host of reasons to stay private (lawyers, executive time/energy, SEC compliance, public investors are generally more myopic than private ones, etc, etc, etc). The "nut" you mention might be an inconvenience, but it's surely not even close to the most important reason to stay private.
You didn't even read the article. The predatory pricing they're talking about is running competition out of business by selling below cost until they have a monopoly.
You're not doing yourself any favors here. People say they don't trust your company because of past behavior of the company itself and history of even ethical companies being bought or changing priorities, and you just keep pushing me further and further toward Lyft or my bike.
> I can't blame the visitors, because they were here for a cheap holiday and knew no better. And the people who rented out their flat are really nice (I'm otherwise on good terms with them). So it's hard to blame anyone but Airbnb and their business model.
You can have an otherwise good relationship with someone while still holding them responsible for something they did.