[Insert Something Clever] @onescotchthreecubes-blog - Tumblr Blog

Hi John. It’s Julia. I know I’ve talked at you about this on twitter, but I want to expand on it. I try not to argue with people on the internet, but I think you’re misguided on this issue. Not malicious, but misguided, and I genuinely want to help you see why your comments elicited such a negative reaction. It’s not the character limit on twitter that’s the problem, it’s the very basis of your thought itself. We know what you were ...

onescotchthreecubes-blog

I appreciate you writing this and I agree with a lot of your points. However, I feel that you miss my main point which is that obesity is a choice; regardless of it's a good one or bad one. I completely agree with you about body shaming and I am very strongly against it. While I do disagree with obesity, as I do with smoking, I wouldn't say I'm intolerant of it as I'm also completely tolerant of smokers. As you made some excellent points, I'll address each individually.

1) I can see how some of my comments came across as this and in the future I will do my best to avoid them. Me being glib can be insensitive and you're correct to point this out.

2) I do not disagree that I have been lucky with regards to weight. My parents instilled in me excellent knowledge with regards to eating healthy and exercising. I also do enjoy going to the gym and pushing myself. However, I have also talked to overweight people who are trying to lose weight. I made a lot of friends with overweight people at gyms I trained at and have seen some of the incredible improvements they've made to their lives. I've talked with them about their struggles. While, yes, I can never know what it's like to "feel" overwieght I do not try to avoid them or have some phobia or snobbery.

3) Here I couldn't agree with you more. I felt that I mentioned many of the reasons and I didn't try to insinuate that emotional overeating is the only reason why others are obese/overweight. Also, when I see people have to make the choice between healthy food and lights next month, it breaks my heart. I know that exists. Further, most people in these situations don't have the education to know how to eat healthy which is another failing. It's to this point, which I never expanded on in my original piece, where I feel society condones obesity. In other developed cultures, the state regulates how much fat/sodium/processing can be in fast food or any food. This is true in Scandinavia as well as the Middle East. I know Bloomberg passed a soda ban, a move I strongly agree with, and I would love it if more states/cities took similar and more drastic steps. A main reason it costs so much for health care in the US is that it's citizens are less healthy. I fully encourage steps like this.

4) On this point I agree with you somewhat. First, yes, I agree we are all genetically different and there is no way I can conclude how factors in their life affect their weight. However, my main point is not everyone has to look like Ryan Gosling shirtless. Though you may have genetics that pre-dispose you to weight gain/weight issues, you can still make changes in your life to improve. I do not expect everyone to be an elite athlete but you can still make healthier choices. Even small things, like walking for 30 minutes a day can have a DRASTIC impact on your weight. While yes, I can't say this about each individual person, I don't believe it's unfair for me to say it's true for the majority. Unless, of course, America is so genetically different than say Europe where obesity rates are lower? To your point about the Biggest Loser I also agree. I think it's a very unhealthy way for people to lose weight. I don't think people should workout until they puke. I don't think it's healthy to have 200 lbs of weight loss over a 10 week period. I'd much prefer to make small, gradual changes to lose weight.

5) I disagree with you on this point. While, no, because I suffer from depression it does not mean that I can understand every other individual's choices on a completely different subject. Also, no, I don't believe that because you're a woman you can understand what it's like to be black in America. However, I do believe that each group can understand and relate to feelings of oppression as a minority. Just because you can't equate with everything doesn't mean there aren't parts of your life that can't be synonymous. In my example, I was relating the need to gamble which was a symptom of my depression of understand the comfort of vices. While, no, I can't understand comfort eating I do understand the strength of vices and how hard it can be to break their hold. My conclusion in that point is people can get help. I got help and if you want to improve issues with your weight you can also get help. You're not stuck.

6) I addressed earlier what I meant about condoning obesity but it mainly comes down to how we, as a society, allow so much crap to be sold to us. Further, media issues are another big issue and am with you 100% on it. More of a comment on government regulation vs. society's opinion.

7) I agree with this point. You're also right in that fat shaming or body shaming of any kind is wrong. However, I want to be clear when I saw I understand that not every body is attainable by every person and accepting who you are is huge. My point in that obesity is a choice is when people refuse to accept that they themselves have the power to change. By not admitting obesity is a choice I feel you are giving those who are, who want to change, a cop out. An excuse in their mind where they then feel powerless of their life. I feel, in the long run, this is a negative outcome. Secondly, if you are overweight and your happy and love your life then don't let me tell you different. I don't think it's wrong to be overweight I just refuse to believe that people have 0 control over their weight. That, if they do want to change, they are powerless to do so. If they don't want to change, then by all means live your life, I promise I won't judge you for it.

I'm really happy that you took the time to write that response. I think this is a healthy conversation for us as a society to have. You are right on a lot of things and I will change some of my views accordingly. I didn't mean any offense.

$GOOG to $FB: LoL

Today, Facebook ($FB) announced that their newest product innovation is "Graph Search" whereby users will now be able to search their social graph for answers to questions. Facebook's algorithms will come out and show how your "friends" have interacted with said question to give you a better search experience. They have said they will partner with Bing in order to bring you a better overall search experience. Their goal is to try and give you a more unified search experience by bringing in the vast data they've acquired through Facebook. My guess is that Google finds this funny.

You see, Google has a a massive data advantage over Facebook and is playing the long game on this one. Firstly, they don't need Facebook's voluntary information input profiles and connections because they already have most of it. If you have a Gmail account, Google has everyone you associate with there. If you entered in your phone number, as many people have, or put your phone in your email signature (as I do), then they have that. If you have an Android phone, which requires a Gmail address to download apps from the Google Play! store, then they also have all of your contacts there (for me, that's well over 500). Also, if you're like me, Chrome is your primary internet browser and Google therefore has all of my searches and internet history. They have my app downloads, my text messages, how I interact with everyone of my contacts, how my contacts interact with everyone of their contacts, the ability to determine meaning from my messages, figure out who I'm sexting, what books I read, who my favorite teams are and pretty much and piece of information I have. What I have listed is a fraction of the information that Google possess on me or you for that matter. Facebook has a fraction of this.

Beyond this, Google has built a platform by which they can deliver ads to me wherever I go. Whether it's in my email, my searches, 90% of the websites I visit which have adsense already built in, in the computer's they're going to be installing into self-driving cars or the augmented reality glasses we'll all be wearing in 5 years. Where as Facebook merely has one platform where people voluntarily interact with it. I involuntarily interact with Google on a much grander scale whereby they can (and do) collect my information. They then have a platform whereby they can use this information to push the most relevant ads ever to me (I've clicked on Google ads, I barely use Facebook anymore).

So what does this mean for the future? Well, as I said in my opening Google is playing a long game. Their ability to use this data in a real-time contextual way to deliver ads is still being developed. The point is they now have the net set up whereby they can collect all of this information. What you will begin to see is hyper-contextual ads. If I'm emailing a girl I've sexted with and her birthday is coming up I may see ads to my right that highlight what she has mentioned to other friends she might like. If I've sexted with her and she doesn't find me attractive, then I will probably see some ads for Russian women who LOVE guys like ME. If I'm talking with my girlfriend and our anniversary is coming up, I may start to see ads for restaurants that she's given great reviews to on Yelp! and the reservations that are open for that night from OpenTable. These are just two very small ways by which Google's social search will dwarf Facebook's.

Of course, all of this brings up the issue of privacy. To which I argue that we don't care if Google has this information but we do if Facebook does. Why? We care because with Google, though hyper contextual, the data isn't personalized or openly displayed. In my girlfriend example, Google will only deliver those results because they know a) it's our anniversary and b) because of our relationship. They are not going to show her boss the same ads with relation to her. Hopefully, as the boyfriend, he's seeing ads for Russian girls who are interested in guys like HIM. With Facebook on the other hand, all of this data is open. Anyone can search the information freely and it's near impossible to make sure it only gets shared with who you want (If you don't believe me, ask Randi Zuckerberg). Where as with Google it's all collected and hidden and then ads are served through a blind bidding process, with Facebook my friends can get the same information easily. This creates risk which lowers the amount I want to share thereby making their data far inferior to Google's. Facebook doesn't have the ability to collect information involuntarily the same way Google does.

To recap, Facebook has a fraction of the data capture ability that Google does and no where near the ad platform by which one can deliver ads. Google is playing a long game and will use the massive amounts of information they have to create relevant ad products that still give the feeling of privacy. People don't mind their information being used to serve them products, they just want a level of blindness to exist from outside prying eyes. Facebook has no way to provide this right now. So to Facebook's new Graph Search, I and Google both say: Lol

We've changed

A while ago, I read an article (http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/6716942/the-movie-star) about how Will smith is the only real movie star left. The conclusion of the article is that Will is the only guy who can, 100%, bring in the big bucks every single movie. However, the interesting thing is he planned this. This didn't happen by accident. He sat down with his agent and formulaically broke down what made a hit movie. Will's exact quote was in 1997 ""We looked at (the list) and said, O.K., what are the patterns? We realized that 10 out of 10 had special effects. Nine out of 10 had special effects with creatures. Eight out of 10 had special effects with creatures and a love story." So what did Will do? His first three movies were: Bad Boys, Independence Day and Men In Black. Or, 1.4B worldwide gross. He rigged the system and started playing with a stacked deck. Will's next movie? Well, it looks like I Am Legend 2 which will probably bring in like $350m.

Now why I tell you this is because people aren't stupid and, despite what you may have read, this is true of Hollywood as well. You see, those Hollywood people learned to look at the ratings and, as such, have tailored their networks around them. CBS is the best at this which is why their shows absolutely kill it in the ratings. It's why we have 2 Survivors a year, 2 NCIS, 3 CSI's and a bevy of Chuck Lore sitcoms that haven't explored a serious issue in a combined 22 seasons on the air. I can't forget, my mother's favorite, ultra non-offensive show The Mentalist. The network's lone "out there" show? The Good Wife.

You see CBS learned a lesson. The key to high ratings is blandness. People don't want to be shocked or to think; they just want to be entertained for an hour before bed. However, this is where I feel our networks are failing us majorly. You see, I've recently started watching The West Wing, a decade old show about the White House, and came away with a startling realization: there is no way they could broadcast this show today. The show is too partisan, it deals with actual issues and in our time of maximum noise, too many bad voices would rise up and it would be canceled after season 1.

There was an episode where a gay teen was beat up, hung to a tree and stoned to death. The White House, in response, decided to toughen up hate crime legislation and wanted the parents of the slain boy there as a symbol but was concerned because the father seemed reserved. The White House incorrectly assumed it was because he was embarrassed his son was gay. Instead, the father asked the White House about the hypocrisy of passing a law to punish the perpetrators while supporting laws that aligned with their thoughts: that his son wasn't good enough for society. The father asked why can't his son get married? Join the boy scouts? Or serve in the military? Though these issues still exist, there is no way this scene could be on television today. No network has the balls.

However, it's not limited to traditionally socially edgy Aaron Sorkin shows. I doubt Seinfeld would be able to make it onto television. There was the famous episode where they were discussing a gay friend and would end every sentence with "not that there's anything wrong with that". They did this because in the mid 90's, in a lot of people's minds, there was something wrong with that. Though everyone knew the PC answer was to be accepting, they still felt it was wrong. Through this comedy, it began to open a dialoge whether there was something wrong with being gay. If this was today, it would not be allowed on TV because gay groups would have a problem with the insinuation that there is something wrong with being gay. Rather than create discussion and change the preference is for repression.

TV networks once again have no problem with this. They are happy to provide conflict free shows which no longer address any major personal, societal or emotional conflict. They are happy to not take a stand because it is the least occupied path to success. However, the failure to take that risk is the reason why none of the shows that come out now will be great. No one will talk about Two and a Half Men in 2025 but there will still be Seinfeld episodes in circulation. Greatness does not get there without taking risks. Without taking a stand.

And, unfortunately for Will Smith, though he is the most bankable movie star today, no one will be talking about his movies in 20 years time. He's greatest critical hit, Ali, is not often mentioned in anyone's all-time list of anything. The Pursuit of Happiness? 7 pounds? I, Robot? Though that's $1B of gross; it's not memorable. Will was offered the role in a movie that I saw tonight with a beautiful girl, Django Unchained, and turned it down. It was a Tarentino movie about a freed slave who goes around and kills a bunch of white people. However, Will turned it down. Why? Because once a white audience sees you, in your best work, as an angry vengeful slave it's hard for us to like you in buddy super hero movies. Will's not here to offend anyone, he's here to make business decisions. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

The Honey Badger

I'm not the Honey Badger 24/7. I'm him maybe 2, 3 hours a week. On Saturdays. The rest of the time, I'm Tyrann. - Tyrann Mathieu

Today, I watched an interview with Tyrann Mathieu on ESPN about his entering the upcoming NFL draft and some of the challenges he's recently had (It's an amazingly powerful video and I encourage you to watch http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=8818328&categoryid=2378529). For those of you who don't follow College Football, Tyrann was one of the best corners in 2011. A small, fearless player; he was known for his speed, fearlessness and football IQ. However, after the 2011 season, Tyrann tested positive for marijuana (not his first offense) and was suspended for his Jr. season. In October, he was also charged with possession and spent the night in jail a time he called rock bottom.

What struck me about this video was how much I related to it. No, I was never a high end collegiate athlete but I could completely understand when he talked about self destruction. About knowing what it's like to lie to people. To let them down. To take losses and disappointment in a way that led to self destruction. To turn to substances and self-abuse because you don't feel like you deserve better. To let down those who love and care for you. To not feel you're worthy of love or happiness.

What really struck me is how this came from a high end athlete. It's rare to see this level of emotion in a sports interview. To see this level of passion. When asked what made him change he said he had to be happy for himself. He had to want it. No one else was going to do it for you, you have to do it for yourself. Further, happiness is not an emotion. Elation, excitement and glee are all emotions. Happiness is a state of mind. It is a product of work. You have to work to be happy. You have to work on your body, your relationships and your mind. No one is happy sitting on their couch staring at a TV all day. Sitting in a bar drinking beers every night. Getting high and playing Call of Duty. You become happy when you're setting goals and working toward them. By accomplishing things. By making your life and the life of those around you better.

This year, my goal is to be more like Tyrann. To get stronger, be smarter and focusing on accomplishing my goals. No more abusing myself. Hurting myself and those around me. I deserve to be happy.

One final note on Tyrann. If I was an NFL GM, there would be no way I wouldn't want him on my team. If he's there in the 4th round, there's no way I'm not taking a chance on me. He's been to the bottom. He's seen the worst and he is better for it. He is tough enough to succeed in this league. Regardless of who takes him, I will be a fan of his. I am rooting for Tyrann.

Obesity as a choice

Earlier today, I made the dumb decision of getting into a circular discussion on twitter. You'd think I'd have learned better by now that 140 characters is not even close to enough to form a cogent argument on a wide and broad reaching topic. Especially a topic that's somewhat controversial. What was this topic? I believe that obesity is a choice that a person makes. I do not see a difference between obesity and alcoholism, smoking or gambling. It is a choice that an individual makes and we as a society condone.

Now as a disclaimer, I am not obese. I have never been obese and my body composition has never been north of 10% body fat. I eat relatively well and work out about 5 times a week. My family is also incredibly health conscious and I don't have much experience in battling weight issues. I am biased. However, what I want to make clear is that I'm not talking about overweight or heavy but obese. I am talking about the extreme. I understand that everyone has different genetics, different metabolisms and different body types. I understand that people have medical issues that make it INCREDIBLY hard to lose weight and make gaining weight very easy. I am not talking about any of those people. Those people are who they are and there is nothing wrong with that. I don't believe everyone should look like some magazine marval; however, I do believe at a certain point, you are choosing to be a way through in-action.

I advocate this because there aren't too many lifestyle changes someone has to make to not be obese. Little things, like walking daily, can have tremendous affects on your health and well being. Eating less processed foods. You don't need to be on a super diet to not be obese. You don't need to spend hours upon hours in the gym. You don't need to starve yourself. Further, these can't be changes you make for a month or things you should do all at once. These should be gradual lifestyle changes. Implemented over a period of forever.

Further, I understand the psychological aspects that lead to someone becoming this overweight. The comfort they get from food. Though I never gained comfort from eating, I have had problems with addiction. I have had issues with depression. How did I overcome these issues? I got help. Why did I get help? Because people told me I needed it and I listened to them. I haven't gambled in 3 years. I'm now on medication for depression. I don't know why it's controversial to say the same thing to people who are obese. Who have problems with food. To help them help themselves. I've been in very dark holes. I know the comfort that comes from vices. I also know that I chose to be better. Am choosing to improve. A choice everyone can make.

Kids these days

I have a very active imagination. One of my favorite pass times is to play hypotheticals out in my head to see how different actions would effect outcomes. One of my favorite hypotheticals was that since 2005, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs would get together for dinner once a year, every year, on some remote balcony with a great view. They would sit there and talk about what the tech industry is now versus when they started their respective companies. They'd share a bottle, or two, of wine and laugh.

What would they laugh about? I would say their main point of humor would come from the radically different environment tech is in now. When they started, their companies had to have sales. They had to have sales or they wouldn't exist. There were no massive venture capital deals in "pre-revenue" states. Gates and Jobs were both hustlers. I can imagine them joking that if they walked into a bank to ask for money and said their company was "pre-revenue" the kind of reception they would get. I'm not sure if they would think it's easier to start a company now, with the abundance of financing options, or harder due to the increased competition.

However, they lived with a fundamentally different mindset that I fell is missing from the tech space these days. They didn't create products to create products; they created them to create sales. From the beginning, they looked to build businesses. Excel is not a "sexy" program or flashy but it's arguably, outside of an operating system, the most important program ever created. I don't see 20 year old kids today trying to create the next excel (or knowing how to use the current). Instead, the focus is on creating a program that acquires users and, hopefully, they'll figure out the revenue thing later.

Not that I don't think these are valiant ventures, I do, I just don't see them as businesses. By focusing on whether you can sell something from the beginning clarifies your objective. By working with a client, it makes product decisions easier as you can base everything on the question "will they or won't they buy". I should note, clients should be there for features, not design. It's up to you, as an innovator, to come up with a design the client doesn't know they need. However, you should keep your focus on sales. On business. Otherwise, it's just a hobby.

The GOP is screwed...

In 2008, after Obama won his first term, Mitch McConnell famously said that the GOP's entire goal was to make Obama a one term President. At the time, it appeared the comment was divisive and showed the GOP only cares about power and not the country. However, I feel now that it was a very well informed comment about where the country was going and how absolutely important this election was for the GOP.

It was a realization that the demographics of the nation are changing. There are more Latino's and other minorities voting. This is a trend that's only getting larger and they disproportionately vote in favor of Democrats, along with women. This election was the last election where that balance was "manageable". In 2016, the gap will be any larger and given the "civil war" that is going on within the GOP, it's unlikely they'll be making any more in-roads into the community.

Second, it is likely that the economy and job situation will begin to get better in the next four years. It is likely this would happen regardless of who the President is; however, if you are the President, you get to take credit for it. Now, had the GOP won, they would be going into 2016 as the incumbent (always an advantage) and on top of four years of economic growth. This would probably be enough to stem the demographic rise and give them 8 years to make inroads into the these new groups.

Instead what they are left with is an internal civil war. The far right is blaming the moderates saying if they went harder they would've been able to "activate the base" and would've won. The moderates are saying the far right is alienating both women and minorities which combined with their increased voting power it's destroying the party. This break will cause more primary challenges during the 2014 mid-term elections and will alienate a large part of the party. If the far right wins, you will continue to see moderate conservatives (your Colin Powell's, Jeb Bush's and Condeleeza Rice's) move over to the, in reality, fairly conservative Democrats.

Given where this is headed it's unlikely they'll be able to identify a strong leader for 2016 (remember after 2008, the GOP went through Bobby Jindal, Michelle Bachmann and Mitt Romney as their frontman). Therefore, there's no hope of them making in roads in the Latino and female community. Without these inroads and the boost that comes from being an incumbent with an improved economy there is very little hope for the GOP over the next 12 years.

A thought on start-ups

This morning I read a very revealing piece about the less glamorous side of start-ups. If you want to find it I suggest Googling "Altsie + Techcrunch". It lines up a lot with what I've ready from Leigh Drogen (@ldrogen) and what I've noticed in my own experience. The fact of the matter is that a lot of start-ups fail. And by fail, I mean lose money, destroy hope and effect founders a lot mentally. They are not easy and for every Stamped, there are, literally, a 1,000 you've never heard of and, unfortunately for the founders, never will.

Why? Well I believe a lot of it has to do with the eco-system that has been created around start-ups, particularly tech start-ups. You see, within this eco-system, EVERYONE will tell you that you have a good idea. They will tell you, "wow, that sounds awesome, what a great product idea." They do this for multiple reasons: 1) no one likes to tell someone their idea sucks, it's not a pleasant experience. That and you usually have these discussions at "start-up networking events" where you really don't want to talk to someone anyway and agreeing is the quickest way to end a conversation. 2) If they feel your idea does suck and it takes off, they want to call you up later looking for a job. It's a lot easier to ask for a job when you can claim you believed in their vision "since the beginning" instead of initially thinking their idea was shit. So they will tell you this for self preservation, if they're right, and your idea is shit, they'll never hear from you again. If they're wrong, and you take off, they can now ask you for a job.

The second problem is the start-up model itself. In a sense, it's been perverted and creating a tech company now is, in a way, creating functional art. I see so many apps, websites, tech looking to solve such nuanced problems that they seem to be more centered around the founders vision/tech chops than they are actually solving a problem. The ability to save you 3 seconds on photo-sharing through your social networks may be a technical accomplishment but it is hardly the basis for which a business should be started.

Even gaining users is not, in itself, impressive. When was the last time you Drew Something (I even splurged for the $1 version!)? Many of these businesses are started with the first thought that, yes, it does solve a problem but fail to ask the question of would someone pay to have this problem solved? In most cases, as evidenced by failures, the answer is unfortunately no. So while, yes, the idea may improve someone's life it will most likely never improve to the point where they will separate with their cold hard cash. And if you think that advertising will be your saving grace, well, when was the last time you clicked on an in-app banner ad? However, that's an entirely different post.

If you want to start a company, make sure a company and not an idea. The difference is that you have a business model that is easy to prove. The best way to prove it? Get a client and with that client figure out how much value your product then creates. Don't give your product away for free to get users, solve this issue and then SELL it. If you can't sell it, you don't have value.

Democracy: Overrated

In North America we talk a lot about the benefits of democracy. In traveling I've started to see many of the downfalls and I don't understand our love affair with it. Democracy comes from the theory that the majority is right; however, it's been perverted to the point to where we're always coming to compromises so everyone gets something. No, central planning does not work but the idea of one leader making decisions for the betterment of the people isn't so bad.

It's an idea that is equated with evil dictators but in reality it's a model the free market actively supports. Some politicians continue to point out that government should be run like a business. Now, if we look at the best businesses in the world they're almost entirely run by one individual's vision. Apple had Steve Jobs, Standard Oil had Rockefeller, Microsoft Bill Gates and the list goes on. How do company's do when they become bogged down and bureaucratic? Well, they're slow to change and are eventually taken out by leaner companies with a better vision.

What has happened to our government? Well it's been paralyzed in taking in EVERYONE'S ideas (money) and can barely decide how a post office should be named. The idea of checks and balances was meant to create a system to prevent a king from having too much power. Hasn't this fear already been realized with democracy? You can now be held as a material witness without charge for an indefinite period of time. You can be held without trial for years or without charges being brought against you (Bradley Manning). Isn't this the exact system "democracy" was designed to prevent?

Counter this with your King/Dictator countries. In the Middle East there is almost no crime because the punishment for even minor crimes are incredibly severe (throws off the value prop to doing crime). If you steal someone's phone, you will be taken to an awful prison and beaten to within an inch of your life for six months. Why would now risk stealing?

Decisions are streamlined. Dubai built the tallest building in the world in four years. It took the USA 11 years to begin construction on a new World Trade Center. Blame is also easily assigned since you know who's fault it is when something goes wrong. The beauracracy of government right now makes it a virtual impossibility to get ANYTHING done because no one wants to agree.

You want smaller government? Elect less officials, trust them to act in the best interest of your country and provide a mechanism to remove them easily. It's not a question of spending but one of people.

Fear and Loathing in Kuwait

First, as some of you know, I'm in the middle of traveling in the Middle East helping some friends with a project. I've spent a week in the UAE and now I'm spending a week in Kuwait. I will probably split what I've learned on this trip into a few posts but I'll keep this post focused on what I've learned about perceptions.

First, the first day I travel anywhere and I mean anywhere, I want to go home. It's a trait I learned from my dad and comes from a fear of the unknown. This has been a fear I've mitigated in other parts of my life but it's always there. It's one of the reasons I have a love/hate relationship with relationships. I love them when they work but I fear getting in them because I'm unsure of how they will change my life. It's the same with travel or any kind of change. However, I've learned how to embrace this fear and use it to grow as a person. You can never grow if you always feel safe.

I've also learned that this fear applies in business. Trying something new, taking the risk, and doing something you don't exactly have a blueprint to know what you're doing is terrifying. It can be paralyzing if you let it. With me, I've learned to embrace this fear, use it to my advantage, plow through and then look back and say that's not bad. It doesn't mean that though I never show it, I still don't feel it. It's often hard to find that outlet though but I've found that outlet is needed. You need someone to talk you down from your own irrationality.

The other thing I've learned is that self doubt is a good thing. It forces you to make better decisions by evaluating the one's you are making. Sure, yes, on the inside I'm an emotional wreck who is barreling forward unsure of what exactly he's doing; but on the outside, I'm a calm cool killer, ready to destroy any obstacle put in my way.

From my trip, I learned something that our media often fails to mention: we're all just people. This idea of Islamic extremism is non-existent. There are only extreme people and they are of any faith and color. From everyone I've met on my trip they all want peace and to be left a lone to live their lives. In fact, they have come to an acceptance of the West's need to intervene. Further, their media doesn't sugercoat news and facts. When they say its terrible what's going on in Syria, they don't show you a far off shot of the street, they show you a mutilated child in the arms of a crying mother. Yet they accept, they pray and they live. Their faith is unbreakable. Further, I've never met a more peaceful and helpful people. I'll write more about this another time.

Why Twitter Won

First off, when I say twitter has won I mean over Facebook. Second, I realize that Facebook is worth $50B and Twitter is only worth $10B (technically $8B at last valuation but the rumored Apple investment would've valued the company at $10B). So, no, I'm not an idiot, I do realize that $50 is bigger than $10. However, Facebook has peaked. It will not come back. It is a dead product and unless they significantly revamp their offering they will be remembered as a MySpace.

This is a bold statement but there are some significant reasons why Twitter has and officially within the next 18 months won. The main reason is the idea of profile. Facebook wants everything in your profile. Who you're dating, when you're born, where you're from, where you go to school, went to school, work, events, friends, how you know them, religion, interests and the list goes on and on. What's worse, is that this list does not get shorter. It keeps going. Twitter on the other hand doesn't really care who you are. The only personal information they require is an optional name, 160 character bio and optional location.

Why this is important is because it shows a stark difference in company philosophies. Facebook defines you by who you are whereas Twitter defines you by what you say and the content you create. Facebook makes the profile and connections primary whereas twitter puts everything on what you say. Fundamentally, the world is giving less of a fuck in who you are. We are not coming back from this viewpoint.

The second fundamental difference is in how the two networks views connections. Twitter allows you to connect on interests. Whereas Facebook keeps your connections to the real world. Both sides have to agree to know each other before you're allowed to see what they do. Twitter allows you to introduce yourself before there is a mutual connection. This encourages you to get to know people whereas Facebook forces you to already know the person; otherwise you feel uncomfortable. This is a MASSIVE difference in philosophy and value prop. Twitter becomes a place to meet people whereas facebook is a place to catch up.

The reason this fundamental change is so paramount goes back to the original value prop of Facebook. You see, Facebook was originally created and subsequently became addictive because it allowed you to get to know people you didn't "know" in college. People that you saw everyday, kind of knew, kind of talked to in real life. However, for the majority of users, outside of college freshman, this is no longer the case. It becomes a place where you review the lives of those you already know. You now catch up with Facebook instead of go to learn.

This fundamental shift, where you no longer learn from the network but maintain, translates directly into usage. The stickyness if you will is no longer there because you only go to learn from what has already happened. Twitter though allows you to learn. It allows you to discover by connecting to someone else's world without them having to give you permission or without them being exposed to yours. What this means is where people will spend their day learning, creating and connecting will not be Facebook. Facebook is where you catch up, it's your ever updating yearbook. Twitter is where you engage, grow and learn.

By fundamentally changing the way that we connect, Twitter has won. By not forcing both sides to agree to a connection fundamentally changes how we understand relationships. It allows relationships to grow while Facebook forces them to already exist. Further, the market has spoken. They prefer the twitter model which is why their usage numbers are growing and Facebook's are falling. This trend will not change.

To sit in the chair

There's a lot of people in this company who think they can sit in this chair. You gotta have balls to sit in this chair and none of those fuckers do. Do you know how I know this? Because if they had balls they'd be here and I'd be there but they're not here so fuck em.

- My CEO

I've been seeing a lot of articles recently about how Zuckerberg should hand the CEO duties over to an experienced CEO to give the market some confidence. These people are morons. They don't understand what it takes to run a company. Honestly, neither do I but I at least have the wherewithal to admit it.

First off, there is no good reason for Mark to leave. It's not like had there been another CEO on board that the share price wouldn't have fallen like a rock the past three months. Further, no one knows the company better than Zuck. He literally built this thing from his dorm room. The idea that he should now step down to give confidence to others to invest is short sighted at best.

Second, your opinion means fuck all; either as an investor or a commentator. Zuck owns 57% of the voting rights so, from a company perspective, his is the only voice that matters. If you don't like this, don't invest. He's not forcing you to and if you ask him he'd probably prefer you didn't because, you know, he'd kinda like to own it all himself.

Third, who would you replace him with? The best "free agent" if you will is his current COO. His board is himself, Sandberg, Thiel and Horrorwitz or, you know, the SMARTEST GUYS ON THE PLANET IN TECH. They all seem to be pretty happy with the job that Mark is doing but yet you, holder of 0 facebook shares and has probably never worked in tech in your life, seems to think he should step down. So yes, I'm going to go with the guys who've been there before and completely disregard your opinion on this one. After all, if you had the balls you'd be in the chair but you don't so fuck off.

A line in the sand

This is the metaphorical line that we all draw. It is apparently the line that we will not cross or, in turn, let others cross. It is, mentally, it for us. Where we claim, in all our mite, that we will not let you pass. That there is no greater reward you can offer us that will allow us to let you pass this line. We all draw these lines. We also all move these lines.

I myself have drawn many of these lines. I have said, quite decoratively, that I have or will or will not do certain things. In many of these instances I have broken these promises. Not in malice or in spite but in practicality. I did not hit a bottom. You never know where to draw these lines until you hit a bottom. A place where there is no worse. A place where the only alternative is up. It's only at this moment, when your back is up against the wall can you draw this line.

Well, I have drawn this line. I've been dealt my hand and I'm ready to play it. Do I know whether or not I have a winner? Not at all but I'm willing to play it out. I'm willing to, for the first time in a while, bet on me. Yes, I may lose but I will not go backwards. I may go down but if I do, I will do so swinging.

Making Rain

The phrase, "making it rain", has become a catchphrase in the hip hop and rap community. It references taking stacks of money, usually hundreds, and throwing it around giving the illusion that it is raining money. The phrase though has steep lore in business as it references a person in a firm who is bringing in the money. However, the origin of the phrase, like most phrases, has a literal meaning. It references people in the early half of the 20th century who claimed they could actually make it rain. These charlatans were called upon when the greatest of droughts struck the American Mid-West and farmers were terrified their crops wouldn't come in. They would then pay these "rainmakers" to protect their crop. The term has stuck ever since.

Now recently I had a talk with a friend of mine who gave me a quick lesson in business. He said, truthfully, wherever you go there will be politics. Always. This is something I've gathered myself and have noticed with friends. Personally, I hate politics. I find it gets in the way of actually accomplishing things. If your mind is distracted by power moves and attempts to take control of things then it's taken off of the goal of trying to create something great.

Also, in my short time, I've found the best way to win at office politics. Make rain. That's it. It doesn't matter who says what or who's angry at who for something they said at lunch 3 weeks ago; all that matters is you make rain. Bring in the contracts, bring in the sales and you are golden. There is no substitute for this. However, like investing, you have to be smart with your wins. Push hard when you get them and use them to your advantage. Use them to build up a base when you stumble because when you do, yes when not if, you will need a soft place to land and re-group.

One final piece of advice: be generous when things are going well for you. Make friends and give people a reason to be your friend. Why? Because you're also making enemies. There will always be those who begrudge your success. Who will try to take it away so it's good to have friends. They will be the ones who will protect you from your enemies when you stumble. They will help you. Trust in them. It's worth it.

My life as a lie

This is one of my favorite expressions. Usually though it's given in the singular versus the group. I use it to describe different lives. The fact that someone who is born or has worked their way into the life of an elite lives a completely different life than someone who lives in poverty. Regardless of their state we nevertheless live a life in our world.

What's funny about this is that no matter our circumstances we all live in the same world. Rich or poor, smart or dumb, we all live the same way. We all breath, eat and fuck. When it comes down to it this is all we do. The pleasures and feelings we feel outside of this are shaped by the way we live interact with others; but, in the aggregate, this is all we will do on this earth.

Myself, I've lived this as a lie. I don't know how to form normal relations. I know how to play games. I don't know what it means to care or, in turn, to be cared for. It kills me. It kills me to the point where I replace actual connection with projects with which I will gain some modicum of acceptance. That somehow this external success will create the validation I need to know that I matter to someone even though I haven't convinced myself I matter to me.

This "if I" battle has been going on internally for years; literally as far back as I an remember. Ironically, I've accomplished most of the statements but yet I've never accomplished the goal. A goal that has become hazier as I've come close to it. To matter beyond a use. Beyond a betterment of someone's own purpose. Maybe one day, I'll matter to me.

Desensitization

When I took economics in school my favorite concept, for some reason, was marginal returns. It completely changed the way that I viewed worth. Marginal returns works on the idea of scarcity. The less of something you have the more it's worth. As you make more of something, the amount the consumer is willing to pay is lowered. Eventually, the price the next person is willing to pay is equal to the price to manufacture the good. At this point, both the market and the producer are indifferent if another good is created thus the market has reached equilibrium.

What's amazing about this concept is it translates over to anything. In gambling, the rush you feel from winning a big bet is, chemically, almost never matched. The next time you win, even a moderately more amount, will not induce the same feelings of elation that the first win brought you. A drug user will never experience the same high they got the first time they try heroin. In each situation, the addict keeps pushing harder to get those same feelings. This is true of almost any stimulant or endorphin inducing situation. Winning is never as good the second time around.

Depending on who you ask, this is either fortunately or unfortunately true for pain. You see the more you're exposed to pain the less it effects you. The first time you see children who are starving in Africa you're horrified. It shakes you to the core because you've never seen anything like that. However, after the 100th time of seeing it, the same images barely even initiate a response. You essentially stop caring unless these images are presented in a way that will create new feelings in you.

Where it is fortunate is in fear. The more you push fear and embrace it the less it bothers you. The better you're able to perform because that tinge in your brain is no longer there. Where others become paralyzed by that tinge you're able to react and push forward. You become better. It's on this edge where you ideally want to live. Experience 20 seconds of fear every day. Where you have absolutely no idea what's going to happen. Embrace it and thank me later.

A Billion Dollars Is Still Fucking Cool

I work in tech. My job is to convince other people that my company's technology and our solutions will make you more money. My job is also to convince other people that my company's technology will help make others lots of money so they should invest in us. This is the crux of my job. I like to think I'm very good at it. I also like to think that my company's product can help make people lots of money; which helps.

This post though is about exit strategies primarily in tech. A discussion came up about what it takes to be a billion dollar tech company. With the numbers thrown around at the big 5 (Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Google and Microsoft) it's easy to forget that a billion dollars is a lot of money. It should also be noted that though you hear of start-ups getting 'sky high valuations yo' they rarely, if ever, touch a billion. Instagram got there, Tumblr is rumored to be close but other than that you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel. Zynga is holding on, Hootsuite is halfway there and companies like Buddy Media, Jive and Virtue sold at their absolute tops.

A billion dollars is a massive amount of money and for a start-up to eclipse it means that they have, in some way, changed the behavior of people. You see, you can get hype to $100m pretty easily. In fact, as valuations go, I would argue they have declining returns. Every million you get, after probably $100m, is that much harder to accrue. You need to keep momentum going. You need your product to have a sticky-ness. Yes, you get flashes in the pan like OMG!POP but do you think Zynga is happy with that $200m purchase (when was the last time you drew something?)? Judging by their recent stock performance I would say no. Groupon? Well they fundamentally changed the way a lot of people consume local services so they deserved their billion plus valuation. 20B? Well now you're being a little silly.

At the elusive billion you need to be significantly more than hype and a big name. This will get you a couple of hundred but it will not get you past the B. And no, I'm not saying that a couple of hundred million is not a lot of money. I'm saying that hype and general market ignorance will get you to that level. To get to the B you're playing with the big boys and you need to be doing some next level stuff that is not easily copied. You need to change the way that everyday people live their lives. Otherwise, you'll fizzle out far before you get to a B.

One final point. Don't be afraid to tell people about your idea. If you're afraid someone will copy it then it's not that good of an idea. If you're afraid "one of the big guys (i.e. Google)" will "throw 100 engineers at it and beat it in a week" then you're a fucking moron. First, technology is very difficult to create. Software is finicky. Second, Google is a big ship. They don't have the flexibility to just "throw 100 engineers and product managers at an idea". They are working on their own shit and they aren't that interested in just dropping that to some how beat you. Third, to them, a billion dollars isn't that cool. When you make 80b a year, it's not worth their effort to stop all production to somehow copy your idea. They'd much rather have you build it, fund you and then buy you out at the 150m level. So quit being paranoid.

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

[Insert Something Clever]