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 -
Replying to @paulg @work_matters
The reason is more sinister than just the portfolio effect though. There's also the opportunity cost of the board seat.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
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.
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.