Same. It seems possible explanations are that 1) It is the vocal minority that are annoyed by these or 2) While perhaps effective once for capturing an email address, if you did a longitudinal study you'd find it results in less engagement over time (I remember reading somewhere that slow webpage speeds don't effect engagement during a given session, but rather cause people to not come back over time).
Totally. This is definitely something I'm seeing on the East Coast as well (Although at a lower rate than those deciding between startup and big co.) The advice I've generally been given is to start a company as soon as possible, because nothing can prepare you for the world of being a founder. In reality, my experience working for a startup has been incredibly useful in shaping how I think about starting my own company. Looking back I feel I was relatively clueless right out of college, and working for a startup first has been an awesome choice for me. But again, I am just one data point.
Looking back from my first job after college, I feel I was relatively clueless right out of college.
But looking back from my startup after my first job, I was relatively clueless in my first job.
And looking back from my big-company job after my startup, I was relatively clueless in my startup.
I don't think this ever ends. Rather, you just become relatively less clueless compared to all the other nincompoops founding startups. Repeat often enough and maybe you can convince someone to give you lots of money.
I generally agree with this. Especially if you have plans to be a founder. Though there is an opportunity cost of learning anything, right? Would the time spent learning to code be better spent learning a different skill that would be more directly applicable to the job you are seeking? I think in some cases, yes.
The "invest in us" page reads more as a gimmick than a real business opportunity. Private companies rarely, if ever, list valuation amounts or concrete prices at which a share can be bought- this makes your company look amateur.
Also, the line "This is an opportunity that could be big enough to IPO, and will certainly have a number of interesting exit opportunities," sounds more like the daily spam in my inbox than a serious business.
That's what I do :) I've noticed an increased number of garbage cans near doors as well, in many places, so I think it's catching on.
I wasn't trying to bash Arrington, btw. He has a point about germs. Especially with the sheeple freaking out about Fludor the Burninator and such. But a handshake ultimately is about showing trust (whether rooted in showing lack of a weapon or not), and here he is saying outright that he does not trust anyone else to keep their hands clean to his obviously-high personal standard. I repsect that he's willing to be forthright about it, though I think carrying a travel-sized bottle of Purell might be a solution with milder social consequences in certain business settings.
After learning how many bacteria can live on bathroom door handles in a food hygiene course, I stopped opening them with my hands when leaving. I'm thankful that most public places now have the S-shaped doorway.
Incidentally, the door handle in a public bathroom can have significantly more bacteria on them than the toilet seat. So ladies (and gentlemen I guess) when you hover over the seat, reconsider if you actually want to touch that door handle. IIRC one study found a 20:1 ratio between doorhandle and toilet seat (door handles are wiped down with a regular cleaner, whilst toilets get a professional-grade bleaching).
I think he makes quite clear that the main argument is that it is not hygienic. In fact his argument that it is an old practice plays into to his hygiene argument. I think what he is saying is that the practice was developed before the germ theory of disease; before people truly knew how disease was spread. With our "updated" knowledge, we should have an "updated" system of greeting. So, though I would usually agree with your point about hating "it's old, ergo it's bad" types of arguments, I don't really think it applies here.
Very thoughtful post, thanks for sharing. One observation:
If, as Matt describes, an executive at a major music label realized the emerging trends of the industry but chose the path that would maximize his stock options over the next 2-3 years at the long-run expense of the stockholders, this would be illegal, and not constitute the "no-brainer" decision that Matt describes.
Executives have a fiduciary duty to stockholders to place long-run stockholder interest above their own. In fact, if this was found to be the case, he would most likely lose these options as well as suffer other legal ramifications. (disclaimer: not a lawyer, I just read blogs about lawyers :) You can argue that executives rarely do this, but nonetheless the legal obligation exists. I would like to think that those executives who take the attitude of "i just want to get my money and run, who cares about the long-term state of the corporation" is the minority, rather than the majority.
Does the law specify a timeline? Even if it did, would it be possible to prove that the CEO knowingly optimized for 3 year gains at the expense of 20 year ones?
An executive's options sink or swim with the company's share price. If a company's investors really want their executives to focus on the horizon, they should adjust compensation accordingly. Lengthen CEO tenure, and give stock/option grants with 10 year vesting periods.
People will always act in accordance with their own incentives. That's the fundamental principle behind the free market. The only way to get a CEO to focus on your long term success is to tie his long term success to it too.
