I disagree with the parent comment even though I share a lot of the same thoughts, feelings and desires. Vengeance would surely be great, for a moment. But your words say it well. Who cares what people think? Your point on ego is spot on.
FWIW, OP focuses a little too much on "finding a connection" and consistently saying, "that's what life is about." IMO, life isn't about anything. Calm down. Relax. Everything is arbitrary. While I think it's great OP has found meaningful activities, the things he finds enjoyable sound dreadful to me.
This may be a bit too anecdotal, but I didn't hear about this campaign until a week before it happened. In my opinion, the organizers failed to consider awareness propagation time and as a result TDWFB felt rushed, sloppy, and silly. According to wiki the organizers announced this protest on January 10, 2014 for the day of February 11, 2014. We even saw posts on HN "wishing to add more features" to the Github projects that helped websites easily show their support.
I realize I'm sounding quite negative (sorry), but really this entire campaign should have given itself a bit more runway for prep and awareness. Just my two cents.
But on a serious note, I wonder how much that 2009-2012 bump has to do with inflation or a lack of other opportunities in the market. Maybe I am out of touch, but it seems like there are less and less places to put your money. Not to suggest that startups are a bubble. The rise is probably due to YC becoming a better filter, picking better horses in the race.
Prior to using Snapchat, I truly wondered what the big deal was. Why is the valuation so high, and what value proposition does it offer? I'm certainly not an expert in the matter, but perhaps my observations can relay some insight to others who just can't seem to grasp it.
Snapchat is a tool that primarily allows a user to become closer to (1) acquaintances, and (2) existing friends who may have drifted away over time. Let's rephrase this a few ways to unveil the value. Snapchat is a communication tool that's useful for overcoming shyness. Snapchat allows users to break the ice, facilitate conversation, and overcome awkwardness. Snapchat allows the user to converse with acquaintances and distant friends that would otherwise be too awkward via other methods like texting, email, Facebook, etc.
In fewer words, Snapchat makes communication trivial.
Just Snap a picture of something, add some silly text or a drawing on top, and push it out to everyone. After all, what's the harm? The picture goes away, and if no one Snaps back it doesn't really matter. There's no evidence of a failed attempted communication, e.g., an un-responded email, text without a reply, comment on a wall without a Like or a response. In this way, Snapchatting is a lot like fishing. Cast your snaps, see which old friends or acquaintances reply, and strike a conversation, hang out, hookup, etc. later on.
The disposable aspect of Snapchat provides a new medium for conversation starting. You know what conversation leads to? Deeper friendships. And who's really interested in knowing who your friends are? If you aren't making "new friends" on Facebook, but elsewhere, you can see why Facebook might be startled. But that fear starts to compound when you consider aging relationships are being nurtured on Snapchat as well.
After all, if you aren't reconnecting with your current friends on Facebook, what good is it? All that's left is the News Feed and what everyone is up to. Hm. Enter Snapchat's "My Story" feature, where you can essentially create a 24-hour lasting Snap, very similar to status updates on Facebook. Interesting.
I'm not sure Facebook being cool or uncool has much to do with it. I suggest the bigger factor is being able to communicate with peers, despite shyness. Overcoming awkwardness, facilitating conversation with a lack of confidence, or whatever you want to call it... Snapchat is a layer below Facebook. Said another way, turning acquaintances into friends (Snapchat) pre-empts the need for maintaining friendships (Facebook).
Again, I didn't intend to setup this argument. However, all one needs to show is that a "Have" is materially worse off thanks to taxes. This gets easier or harder depending on definitions.
Clearly, Have versus HaveNot is not binary; there is a range there. Who is a Have and who is a HaveNot? If a Have is a $20k/yearly worker and a HaveNot is without a job entirely, we could easily argue that taxes are punishing the Haves.
Sorry, removed that piece from the original post as I feared it would detract from the main point. The use of "haves" versus "have nots" was intended as an example of divide and conquer. It was not intended as two distinct groups, with obviously distinguishable beliefs. Persons shift beliefs to exploit ends that are most beneficial to them. For other readers, he's referring to:
> This is classic "Us versus Them" (divide and conquer) that systemically makes it worse for most everyone, especially the individual. One is punished for success via taxes, fees, fines, etc. by the "have nots"; while the "haves" punish you for practicing a different set of ideals or lifestyle choices that go against societal norm.
Again, I meant to show an example. Whether the "haves" or "have nots" are in camp "punish by taxes" or camp "control lifestyle" is irrelevant. Persons shift between camps, when it's convenient. Similarly, all sorts of other camps exist towards other ends.
This and yesterday's thread [1] are fascinating. Here we have lower-classes seeking direct retribution against higher-classes. Contrast to yesterday's article involving upper-classes discussing how to uplift lower-classes via social policy changes and enforcing certain belief doctrines, e.g., do XYZ, not ABC.
Of course it's easier to rail against the the former camp than the latter; we all believe in some degree of property rights, i.e., you bare the fruit of your labor. However, I propose both positions are unjustified and both parties need to bow out of one another's business.
Not trying to push libertarian beliefs (I am not one). But everyone is an asshole, out to serve their own ends, trying to sculpt the world in the way they would have it.
I appreciated your comment. It's easy to overlook definitions and categorically group things based on simple criteria checking. People who are currently buying BTC is a shared characteristic of (1) speculators, (2) early adopters, and (3) probably other actors.
Regardless if they are speculators, does their initial reason for adoption matter to the definition of an early adopter? Speculators may at any time become users, and normal users may at any time start speculating.