Juicero was not created to head-fake people with a grudge against Silicon Valley into outing themselves, but it worked that way in practice.
-
-
Replying to @paulg
Criticizing Juicero is fine. What's intellectually dishonest is criticizing SV by claiming Juicero is typical of it. http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/05/11/silicon-valley-a-reality-check/ …
12 replies 35 retweets 148 likes -
Replying to @paulg
Fair enough. But we also need to own that the B.S. vs hard facts ratio here is often too high. Theranos didn't help
3 replies 1 retweet 10 likes -
Replying to @work_matters
It's high, but it's hard to say for sure if it's too high.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @paulg @work_matters
Founders' ambitions and crazy-ideas-that-aren't are hard to distinguish from BS. So some amount of credulity is optimal.
5 replies 3 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @paulg
Consider the effects of overconfidence. On average, any given founder still loses, those with a portfolio of overconfident founders win
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @work_matters
I know VCs tend favor kill-or-cure strategies, and often warn founders about it.
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes
The reason is more sinister than just the portfolio effect though. There's also the opportunity cost of the board seat.
-
-
Replying to @paulg @work_matters
The phenomenon is not as bad as it used to be though. And founders benefit from portfolio effect too, because they can start multiple cos.
0 replies 0 retweets 3 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.