Example: I'm in San Francisco and am driving back to home to the peninsula and I want to have dinner on the way. I'm out of my area of knowledge, and there are probably tons of good restaurants that I'd like that are right on my way, but it takes too long to find them. Prohibitively long, in fact, because usually I just drive back home and eat somewhere near my house rather than hop back and forth between Yelp and the map on my phone for fifteen minutes.
Another example: I'm on a driving trip and I want to eat at one of the restaurant chains I like that's near the interstate. I'd happily wait 90 minutes if I could eat at a place I like, but I don't have any way of knowing whether something is coming. And searching for all the acceptable restaurants in all the upcoming towns isn't really reasonable.
When I read the headline, my first thought was that it was just a weird spelling for "pouch." Then when I read your description, I saw the word "collect" and thought "Yup, it must be a reference to a pouch, since it's for collecting things."
Having now read the comments, it sounds like that's not what you're going for, but it seemed reasonable when I first read it. A weird spelling, sure, but no more weird than the other new startup names we roll our eyes about.
On the other hand, maybe you don't want people rolling their eyes at all. =)
I'm reasonably new to the world of startups, so I'm hoping someone can answer this question for me:
Are there really that many people who wanted to invest pre-JOBS and couldn't? It seems I've heard dozens of stories about how some suburban family invested in their neighbor or brother-in-law or drinking buddy. I don't think I've ever heard or read someone complaining that they wanted to give money to an entrepreneur and just weren't allowed to. What am I missing?
I have a theory about what motivated _why to quit. Partway through the article it says that the name "_why" is a reference to The Fountainhead. (The precise reference is here: http://books.google.com/books?id=3WiS2jWThFAC&lpg=PT133&...) If he read that, maybe he also read Atlas Shrugged (also by Ayn Rand) -- a story in which several successful and prolific characters "disappear" in exactly this manner.
I won't spoil the plot for anybody who's planning to read it, since this mystery is one of the main parts of the story, but this explanation sounds pretty likely to me.
I'm a girl in tech, and I think nothing in that introduction is offensive.
I feel that there are five points here that need addressing.
1. Women rarely become attractive by doing nothing. We have to work at it. You have to take care of yourself, go to the gym, eat right, choose appropriate clothing, and etc. I have never laid eyes on Rebecca Lovell, but if she's attractive then I think it is a safe assumption that she is trying to be attractive. If I were Rebecca, I would be pleased that my efforts had been noted and approved of.
2. If the fellow who introduced Rebecca had implied that her attractiveness was her only useful quality, I would be more sympathetic to Dan's complaint. But the introduction didn't do that. In fact, he led off by saying how smart Rebecca was, and then he went on to describe her as "perfect" (for the position) and "talented." At no point did he imply that Rebecca was chosen for her looks or that her looks were her claim to fame. On the contrary, his introduction seems genuinely kind, respectful, and affectionate.
3. Even if this introduction had been offensive -- if the introducer had said "Rebecca is hot and stupid and we will enjoy looking at her while she moderates" -- is it really that big a deal? Men insult each other all the time in similar contexts, and it's very rare that they get criticized for it as when women are insulted. If we women are worth a damn, surely our egos should be sturdy enough to handle this sort of thing like adults.
4. I have often heard men say "No wonder there aren't more women in tech; they get treated like sex objects!" It should be news to no one that men like sex -- least of all to women. People in all industries and with all interests are insulted all the time. Can it really be true that womens' interest in tech is so fragile and tenuous that vague insults and sexual innuendo are enough to discourage them from it entirely? I don't believe that, and I'd further venture to say that women who do say that are just making excuses because they're interested in something else. I got my CS degree from Georgia Tech, and in the College of Computing men outnumbered women 9 to 1. I was often the only girl in my classes, and sometimes I was exposed to immature male freshmen being immature male freshmen. This wasn't a trial for me; it wasn't difficult. I wasn't alienated. It sounds crazy to even consider that references to breasts or sex (gasp!) would make me leave my chosen field of study. Who cares if I know that someone wants to have sex with me?
5. Dan Shapiro is clearly trying to do right by women and be a good man, and I respect and appreciate that. But I think he is selling Rebecca (and all women) short by suggesting that that introduction should hurt her feelings.
Example: I'm in San Francisco and am driving back to home to the peninsula and I want to have dinner on the way. I'm out of my area of knowledge, and there are probably tons of good restaurants that I'd like that are right on my way, but it takes too long to find them. Prohibitively long, in fact, because usually I just drive back home and eat somewhere near my house rather than hop back and forth between Yelp and the map on my phone for fifteen minutes.
Another example: I'm on a driving trip and I want to eat at one of the restaurant chains I like that's near the interstate. I'd happily wait 90 minutes if I could eat at a place I like, but I don't have any way of knowing whether something is coming. And searching for all the acceptable restaurants in all the upcoming towns isn't really reasonable.