Yeah, and the quality of the 'marketing writing' is good and informative. Because A16z can afford high quality writing...
These 'emerging stack' articles do promote their own companies, but are nevertheless useful for newcomers into a field, to quickly grasp the process and the players. If you don't like it, compile your own version.
I've used some companies recommended in their data architecture and it worked very well.
Hot take: I think the fact vector DBs are even a hot field with multiple competitors speaks to the bending of the branches due to VC weight, so to speak. These things take ~40 LOC and 3 hours to write yourself, they can process ~20 pages/seconds ms, locally, on devices from 3 years ago that fit in your pocket. Having it hosted is a massive privacy risk. Yet how many vector DBs as companies articles have we seen, and how many ONNX tutorials have we seen?
Since A16Z is famous, any bias advertisement can lead to monopolization and do damage to the production competition. Any kind of monopolization needs to get supervised.
Not any way but some way, freedom is not always an excuse. This the reason why we need to have police man and why Zuck need to explain himself in the congress
I mean, I'm glad I know there's a bias in those blog posts now. Until this post, I didn't know a16z funded companies/projects let alone biased their posts toward them and I've read a few of their LLM blog posts.
I have tremendous respect for a16z, a firm that helped pioneer the practice of working with and nurturing founders rather than forcing them out pre-IPO or minmaxing term sheets.
more a call to be more transparent and less submarine:
but to do so under the guise of being helpful and impartial is just plain silly.
If you define it widely as "people writing about things they have a vested interest in", maybe. In a16z's case they went out of their way to stand up media pipelines a few years back.
Yes, indeed HN is glorified marketing and networking for YC :)
But I think a16z has spent a lot more time and money on their marketing efforts, especially as it relates to crypto. I for one am sick of hearing news stories, only to find that they're thinly veiled a16z marketing pitches for crypto scams.
It isn't even unique to VCs or businesses. Most personal blogs are glorified marketing. Often it's people trying to establish their credibility in some domain.
Not all of them are marketing. Some of them expose his belief system. After “The Techno-Optimist Manifesto” it’s very hard for me to take him seriously again.
This strengthens my theory that VC vocabulary consists almost exclusively of other people’s hot takes. I know only of two other groups of people who speak primarily in quotes: religious fundamentalists and teenagers during a brief fan-frenzy of some pop culture icon (eg Nirvana).
Oh wow, I forgot about that! What a wild read. It was such a mess.
I loved it. Something about a famous rich person putting that much effort into something so amateurish and clumsy, while apparently being so confident, in an eager-college-freshman sort of way… I dunno, call it endearing, maybe.
I mean it’s either that or it’s horrifying. I choose to pretend it’s endearing because there’s too much horrifying already.
It's horrifying because it's not an isolated wild rich man seizure, it's the same shit that Musk, Dorsey et al believe. The whole effective altruism movement is infected with this bizarre space feudalism.
> The whole effective altruism movement is infected with this bizarre space feudalism.
This is basically what "longtermism" is. It's "we will amass huge amounts of capital to rule you now, because we know best, and we promise that as a result your (great-great-...)grandkids will have it better than if we hadn't".
It's just getting rich and playing with toys but with an ethical justification for it.
It reminds me of how back in the day there was all sorts of Creative Bible scholarship around it being "easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter heaven". Like they were all "actually the 'eye of the needle's is the name of this big gate in Jerusalem. It's super easy to get a camel through it!"
EA has done some neat stuff in the here and now in terms of looking at charities et al. But anything claiming to benefit the unborn trillions of the far, far future is just someone making excuses for themselves.
The comparison to the false theology is really apt. That goes back to at least the 11th century and it’s part of an even older tradition[0] trying to tell rich people that they can ignore a pretty clear biblical injunction. It’s been interesting seeing how as atheism becomes more popular there’s been a rise of secular thinkers selling an almost identical message that it’s okay to be basically as selfish as you want as for your entire life as long as you end with a grand philanthropic act to balance it out.
I have never heard of it, but I just had a quick skim through and IMHO the bad parts are the parts that have anything to do with economics, because it exposes him as a totalitarian neofeudalist (although he might not think of himself that way ... most totalitarian neofeudalists don't, they just don't understand their own economics well enough to see where it leads).
Is the US as it operates today a free market (how free?) or a weighted control economy where the larger players have a greater weight of control of media and the political landscape via owned outlets and subsidised senators?
Do small players in the US economy have equal access to the market, or are they overshadowed by near oligarchies?
the "control" of a "weighted control economy" is usually enforced through government (including those politicians you reference). so when we bring in more government then it's less free market. how close we are getting to a free market depends on who is in power and calling for reduced government intervention/regulations for businesses.
as far as control of media, traditional media is becoming increasingly irrelevant and when free speech is allowed on social media the economy becomes more free.
and small players seem to disrupt all the time. openai being the most obvious recent example. twitch being another notable example before that.
i usually don't respond to distracting personal questions, but your use of bicameral confused me a little. did you mean to say binary?
> the "control" of a "weighted control economy" is usually enforced through government
It is extremely common for large private firms to have weighted control in an economy. Sometimes their control is bolstered by government and sometimes it is hindered by it. But in a completely unregulated market it would be common for monopolies to pop up which could then control large sections of the economy. There simply is no simple linear relationship between "free markets" and government intervention.
> when free speech is allowed on social media the economy becomes more free
Sadly the loudest "free speech proponents" who run social media firms are actually just interested in allowing the speech they want. They will still do everything they can to limit the speech of those they disagree with.
> when we bring in more government then it's less free market.
Let's go to the extreme with your logic. If you completely remove the government you end up with the mafia textbook. The easier way to win at the game is taking out the competition with lethal force. Once that's done there's no one to compete with you, no "free market", congratulations you won.
Why compete in bringing value when you can just use your money to takeout the competition.
Bicameral was used by Jaynes in the sense of distinct seperate chambers of the mind, rather than political chambers; I can't say I agreed with his thesis but I always enjoyed his argument and the apropriation of the word.
> i usually don't respond to distracting personal questions
These were specific questions to tease out why you're presenting free market OR planned economies as the only choices- it smacked of certain type of central north american libertarianism that uses Heinlein's early teen reader simplifications.
OpenAi being described as a small player is laughable, small players don't appear with one billion US pledged in backing and sheperded by core established technocrats.
BTW, the question was: "Is the US as it operates today a free market?"
i don't think anyone has a clear answer for "winning the argument" since definitions can be endlessly debated.
i think a more useful question is "what about the existing US economy is what makes it work/effective?" another useful question is "what about other economies make them less effective than the US economy?"
to answer the first question, the US economy works better when it's a freer market. magatte wade gives a convincing answer to the second question about africa when she points out it's generally very difficult to start a business in african countries.
i'm curious about what alternative you are interested in promoting and how. are you against free markets or do you have ideas on how to make markets more free?
I don't: that is a different question which isn't as useful as the one actually asked. Like the person you responded to without answering, I, too, am interested in hearing your direct and clear answer to the question, "Is the US as it operates today a free market?"
If you can define what a free market is (to you), you have a higher likelihood of your question being answered, rather than continuing to ask it without any clarification. This is similar to what the parent was saying.
there are parts of the American market that are free and there are parts that are not. We'd have to get into specific details to classify said parts.
While I don't think the existing economy is so binary (bicameral?), you are free to assume either a free market or not and make your arguments accordingly to explore the principles of free markets versus planned economies. I don't think a critique of the general principles of free market versus not relief on my specific answer. We are talking about ideals espoused in a self-proclaimed manifesto, so it's appropriate to speak about the ideals.
> While I don't think the existing economy is so binary
As a call back to how this started you yourself partitioned global(?) economies into
> you have free markets (which the manifesto supports) or planned economies
so you did in fact think that economies are this OR that.
For those of us in the real world many G20 and othe economies are hybrid with a mix of both features and "free market" is a loose term of idealogy that can mean one thing to readers of Adam Smith in his contemporous context and other things to various flavours of modern US libertarians.
> there are parts of the American market that are free and there are parts that are not.
That has been my observation, too: it is not a free market, but rather a composite.
Why do you think Americans chose to implement the "non-free" parts? What do you imagine they want out of government intervention, and why? Why do you think that Americans believe intervention is better than no intervention?
Those are the questions I think are worth discussing along the lines of the initial question, if the goal is to change what people want. You first must understand, empathize with, and internalize their motivation for what they currently want.
How would your "ideal" market then look like? I'm not getting what it "means" for small players to have equal access to the market than large players, of course greater resources will lend itself to greater reach.
The ideal free market is one where that exact effect doesn’t exist. Why would it be optimal for more wealth to naturally accrue more wealth? That is definitionally anti-competitive ergo suboptimal in the capitalist’s worldview.
indeed but sometimes abstractions are useful. i would argue that in this case the binary is useful because of the PP's use of the word "totalitarian" (as in "totalitarian neofeudalist").
i am arguing that the word was misapplied to the essay since the essay was promoting free markets and it's central planning that offers opportunity for totalitarian control.
If one could have a "free market" in the sense that there were no state to begin with (which one can't) then you wind up with anarcho capitalism, in which a single entity wins because returns to capital accelerate. This single entity can then do whatever it likes.
In reality, you start with a state and then have increasing regulatory capture by large private entities who turn the state into a system that exists purely to enforce their property rights. As they do so they eliminate public purpose.
Whether you have planned totalitarianism or anarcho capitalist totalitarianism the result is the same. If you have 100% returns to either labour or capital, or you try to eliminate either public or private purpose, then you must have totalitarianism.
The Techno-Optimist Manifesto imagines that you can have no state AND no regulatory capture, it's garbage. There are only 2 things in the economy: labour and capital. You have public purpose and private purpose. You balance those things, you have social democracy and innovation. You let it slip to any extreme and you're gonna have a bad time.
> anarcho capitalism, in which a single entity wins because returns to capital accelerate. This single entity can then do whatever it likes.
You could have a natural monopoly form in anarcho-capitalism but unless they also grabbed a monopoly on the use of force and barred competition (basically became the state) then if they did abuse their monopoly position they would inevitably have competition arise even if it was required to route around whatever their monopoly was.
> unless they also grabbed a monopoly on the use of force and barred competition (basically became the state)
That's absolutely inevitable.
That's why I call it feudalism. What you just described is like the middle ages with various independent scattered kingdoms, or like a collapsed state where rival warlords compete for control, with the occassional uprising.
Well, that is any modern (or even pre-modern) nation-state too, vying for control over land and resources. Just because we don't have wars as much today over these things does not mean that they were not historically the norm. It's not feudalism, it's is the nature of humans to conquer and be conquered, regardless of whatever system they're in, political or economical.
This is a good question. What differentiates his six thousand word manifesto from all of the totally normal six thousand word manifestos that are written by completely normal people on a daily basis?
Exactly. Writing and publishing manifestos is a normal thing. Surely if you cannot link to your manifesto it is simply because you’ve yet to finish proofreading it
This is a good point. A manifesto is when you write more than a few paragraphs. The Cheesecake Factory menu is a manifesto, for example, and it is a baffling failure of diction that they do not call it that.
I am now considering what I would write in a manifesto. It wouldn't be a bad exercise, although sharing it with other people would lock me into a bunch of opinions that I might regret later.
if there's one thing that we've learned over the last eight or nine years, it's that you don't have to be taken seriously by most people to have an impact.
They were and remain big crypto investors and it's pretty weird that the essay doesn't acknowledge how much talent and money crypto sucked up. He asks where the supersonic aircraft are and - ignoring that they have awful externalities - there is actually a supersonic jet startup. A16Z hasn't invested in Boom, though, near as I can tell.
A16Z is a leading venture fund - if anyone's gonna build the future, they could use A16Z's money. So why is so much of what Andreesen wants from the future not what they've invested in?
> there is actually a supersonic jet startup. A16Z hasn't invested in Boom, though, near as I can tell.
A quick review of their website and some cursory googling reveals that while boom is not in their portfolio they have invested in a company developing a super sonic jet engine technology (Astro Mechanica) [1] as well as a company producing precision machine parts for aerospace (Hadrian) [1] and various other companies that intersect with the area. [3] Perhaps they wanted to invest in Boom but the deal wasn’t right or they are skeptical of that particular company or they simply never got the chance but clearly they are putting their money into this area and it’s worth researching before judging them.
> So why is so much of what Andreesen wants from the future not what they've invested in?
You still want to invest in a particular company or people who you believe will make you tons of money. Just because someone is active directionally in what you believe will be the future does not necessarily mean you should put your money with them.
This makes sense as an answer but seems like an incredible indictment of venture capitalism, right? If they can't bring about a better, safer, healthier, science fiction future because it's less profitable than crypto, who can? If that essay had been a mea culpa, I'd like it a lot more
Most "news" in the tech industry is funded by VCs, if you follow the money.
It's not a terrible fact, but it's one to be aware of. All the `"X Technology" [that Y VC firm has recently raised $4Bn of capital to chase, cough cough] has massive potential to upend [big industry], here's why` articles are compensated-for boosterism.
There's still signal in there, although it's mostly in the meta-facts of what they choose to talk about and what they choose not to talk about.
When you compare the press coverage of "X VC-backed startup with product A" to "Y bootstrapped startup with product A," it's sort of evident how corrupt startup media actually is. Taking it at face value is not usually a good idea.
There's only so much money you can make off of banner ads and at a certain point native advertisements are way more lucrative. I wonder how they get around disclosure requirements but I guess it's probably because the articles are never directly funded but there's some other form of compensation in the backend.
Tom Scott made an interesting video about internet advertising regulations a while back. [1]
"Traditional" media makes a bulk of their income from things they remain silent on.
Thypicaly, there are "majority advertisers". Their [combined] advertising spend is itself negotiating power, which typically includes PR fluff articles for agencies.
On top of that, PR agency gives instructions what to write and organizes utterly expensive ads from unrelated entities. Everytime you see an article that screams "that's an ad" or is disclosed as such, well... It is most likely payment for something else.
We're not one monolith of content. Folks post what they want and think is interesting. You can also imagine a lot of our portco CEOs don't love when we mention their competitors.
Some of us do it more than others, depending on the topic or point of the post. Market maps do it a lot more than position pieces, as you'd expect, for instance. Anyways, the feedback is good.
"Online, the answer tends to be a lot simpler. Most people who publish online write what they write for the simple reason that they want to. You can't see the fingerprints of PR firms all over the articles, as you can in so many print publications-- which is one of the reasons, though they may not consciously realize it, that readers trust bloggers more than Business Week."
is very dated though. Nowadays pretty much anything on Medium or Substack should probably be treated as ads or personal branding by default.
The VCs have their blogs to attract people - it’s lead generation
nfx has good stuff about network effects
avc talks about stuff from Fred Wilson’s point of view
But my favorite is https://worldaftercapital.org by Albert Wenger, a partner at USV. Because it is clearly NOT about marketing and it’s about sharing his worldview. A venture capitalist talking about a post-capital world!
No kidding, here is “Strangulating the monolith to a pluggable and scalable architecture” on Medium, which thinks so highly of it you have to sign in to read:
Most things in america are paid ads in disguise: these posts, blogs by mckinsey/bcg/big 4 accounting firms, news is often a paid ad/agenda in disguise. You're honestly better off spending time with your family and developing a small hobby.
~ musings from a late 30s guy
if you want to get massively wealthy get a good CS education or just get business experience in the real world, these a16z blogs and podcasts are for what's appropriately been labeled Veblenian entrepreneurship, that is consuming entrepreneurship as a sort of cosplay lifestyle.
I'd argue that if you are really interested, you can follow a few academics and read up on their papers etc. Of course, that's a big undertaking but it's the only alternative I can think of given the incentives for pushing shit at us
I feel like this is equivocating a bit. Scientific papers exist to put forth an argument and change minds, yes. That’s the entire point of science as an endeavor. It’s not perfect, but if we’re going to define “marketing” as “anytime someone tries to convince me of anything”, I think we’re getting a tad reductionist.
definitely marketing. they tried so hard to hype clubhouse. i think the experiment was to see if they could birth stars out of nothing only to learn it does not work that way.
149 comments
[ 4.2 ms ] story [ 247 ms ] threadThese 'emerging stack' articles do promote their own companies, but are nevertheless useful for newcomers into a field, to quickly grasp the process and the players. If you don't like it, compile your own version.
I've used some companies recommended in their data architecture and it worked very well.
But I think a16z has spent a lot more time and money on their marketing efforts, especially as it relates to crypto. I for one am sick of hearing news stories, only to find that they're thinly veiled a16z marketing pitches for crypto scams.
So the obvious assumption is that Ben and the other leadership is supportive of it.
https://a16z.com/the-techno-optimist-manifesto/
Like he's the author of the post, at the top of the page.
I loved it. Something about a famous rich person putting that much effort into something so amateurish and clumsy, while apparently being so confident, in an eager-college-freshman sort of way… I dunno, call it endearing, maybe.
I mean it’s either that or it’s horrifying. I choose to pretend it’s endearing because there’s too much horrifying already.
This is basically what "longtermism" is. It's "we will amass huge amounts of capital to rule you now, because we know best, and we promise that as a result your (great-great-...)grandkids will have it better than if we hadn't".
It's just getting rich and playing with toys but with an ethical justification for it.
It reminds me of how back in the day there was all sorts of Creative Bible scholarship around it being "easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter heaven". Like they were all "actually the 'eye of the needle's is the name of this big gate in Jerusalem. It's super easy to get a camel through it!"
EA has done some neat stuff in the here and now in terms of looking at charities et al. But anything claiming to benefit the unborn trillions of the far, far future is just someone making excuses for themselves.
- AI safety is an imminent threat and the best solution is to form an AI company and sell large amounts of stock to big tech
- I’m super smart so I need to be the one to work on this
- I need to earn loads of money so that I have the resources and focus to save humanity
0. 2nd century softening: https://www.academia.edu/40130012/Widening_the_Eye_of_the_Ne...
Do small players in the US economy have equal access to the market, or are they overshadowed by near oligarchies?
Are you always so bicameral?
as far as control of media, traditional media is becoming increasingly irrelevant and when free speech is allowed on social media the economy becomes more free.
and small players seem to disrupt all the time. openai being the most obvious recent example. twitch being another notable example before that.
i usually don't respond to distracting personal questions, but your use of bicameral confused me a little. did you mean to say binary?
It is extremely common for large private firms to have weighted control in an economy. Sometimes their control is bolstered by government and sometimes it is hindered by it. But in a completely unregulated market it would be common for monopolies to pop up which could then control large sections of the economy. There simply is no simple linear relationship between "free markets" and government intervention.
> when free speech is allowed on social media the economy becomes more free
Sadly the loudest "free speech proponents" who run social media firms are actually just interested in allowing the speech they want. They will still do everything they can to limit the speech of those they disagree with.
Let's go to the extreme with your logic. If you completely remove the government you end up with the mafia textbook. The easier way to win at the game is taking out the competition with lethal force. Once that's done there's no one to compete with you, no "free market", congratulations you won.
Why compete in bringing value when you can just use your money to takeout the competition.
> i usually don't respond to distracting personal questions
These were specific questions to tease out why you're presenting free market OR planned economies as the only choices- it smacked of certain type of central north american libertarianism that uses Heinlein's early teen reader simplifications.
OpenAi being described as a small player is laughable, small players don't appear with one billion US pledged in backing and sheperded by core established technocrats.
BTW, the question was: "Is the US as it operates today a free market?"
Do you have a clear answer there?
i think a more useful question is "what about the existing US economy is what makes it work/effective?" another useful question is "what about other economies make them less effective than the US economy?"
to answer the first question, the US economy works better when it's a freer market. magatte wade gives a convincing answer to the second question about africa when she points out it's generally very difficult to start a business in african countries.
i'm curious about what alternative you are interested in promoting and how. are you against free markets or do you have ideas on how to make markets more free?
I don't: that is a different question which isn't as useful as the one actually asked. Like the person you responded to without answering, I, too, am interested in hearing your direct and clear answer to the question, "Is the US as it operates today a free market?"
Would you mind answering that question, please?
While I don't think the existing economy is so binary (bicameral?), you are free to assume either a free market or not and make your arguments accordingly to explore the principles of free markets versus planned economies. I don't think a critique of the general principles of free market versus not relief on my specific answer. We are talking about ideals espoused in a self-proclaimed manifesto, so it's appropriate to speak about the ideals.
As a call back to how this started you yourself partitioned global(?) economies into
> you have free markets (which the manifesto supports) or planned economies
so you did in fact think that economies are this OR that.
For those of us in the real world many G20 and othe economies are hybrid with a mix of both features and "free market" is a loose term of idealogy that can mean one thing to readers of Adam Smith in his contemporous context and other things to various flavours of modern US libertarians.
That has been my observation, too: it is not a free market, but rather a composite.
Why do you think Americans chose to implement the "non-free" parts? What do you imagine they want out of government intervention, and why? Why do you think that Americans believe intervention is better than no intervention?
Those are the questions I think are worth discussing along the lines of the initial question, if the goal is to change what people want. You first must understand, empathize with, and internalize their motivation for what they currently want.
Very good in the feudalist’s worldview though!
Believe it or not, humanity's economic markets cannot be fully described by two simple categories.
i am arguing that the word was misapplied to the essay since the essay was promoting free markets and it's central planning that offers opportunity for totalitarian control.
In reality, you start with a state and then have increasing regulatory capture by large private entities who turn the state into a system that exists purely to enforce their property rights. As they do so they eliminate public purpose.
Whether you have planned totalitarianism or anarcho capitalist totalitarianism the result is the same. If you have 100% returns to either labour or capital, or you try to eliminate either public or private purpose, then you must have totalitarianism.
The Techno-Optimist Manifesto imagines that you can have no state AND no regulatory capture, it's garbage. There are only 2 things in the economy: labour and capital. You have public purpose and private purpose. You balance those things, you have social democracy and innovation. You let it slip to any extreme and you're gonna have a bad time.
You could have a natural monopoly form in anarcho-capitalism but unless they also grabbed a monopoly on the use of force and barred competition (basically became the state) then if they did abuse their monopoly position they would inevitably have competition arise even if it was required to route around whatever their monopoly was.
That's absolutely inevitable.
That's why I call it feudalism. What you just described is like the middle ages with various independent scattered kingdoms, or like a collapsed state where rival warlords compete for control, with the occassional uprising.
It’s funny how the better way is never “end aristocracy” and secure equality of condition
Just more feudalism with the rich never fighting just betting
and what is "equality of condition" and how do you achieve it?
They were and remain big crypto investors and it's pretty weird that the essay doesn't acknowledge how much talent and money crypto sucked up. He asks where the supersonic aircraft are and - ignoring that they have awful externalities - there is actually a supersonic jet startup. A16Z hasn't invested in Boom, though, near as I can tell.
A16Z is a leading venture fund - if anyone's gonna build the future, they could use A16Z's money. So why is so much of what Andreesen wants from the future not what they've invested in?
A quick review of their website and some cursory googling reveals that while boom is not in their portfolio they have invested in a company developing a super sonic jet engine technology (Astro Mechanica) [1] as well as a company producing precision machine parts for aerospace (Hadrian) [1] and various other companies that intersect with the area. [3] Perhaps they wanted to invest in Boom but the deal wasn’t right or they are skeptical of that particular company or they simply never got the chance but clearly they are putting their money into this area and it’s worth researching before judging them.
1. https://www.notboring.co/p/astro-mechanica
2. https://www.hadrian.co/
3. https://a16z.com/portfolio/ (Look under American dynamism)
You still want to invest in a particular company or people who you believe will make you tons of money. Just because someone is active directionally in what you believe will be the future does not necessarily mean you should put your money with them.
It's not a terrible fact, but it's one to be aware of. All the `"X Technology" [that Y VC firm has recently raised $4Bn of capital to chase, cough cough] has massive potential to upend [big industry], here's why` articles are compensated-for boosterism.
There's still signal in there, although it's mostly in the meta-facts of what they choose to talk about and what they choose not to talk about.
Tom Scott made an interesting video about internet advertising regulations a while back. [1]
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-x8DYTOv7w
Thypicaly, there are "majority advertisers". Their [combined] advertising spend is itself negotiating power, which typically includes PR fluff articles for agencies.
On top of that, PR agency gives instructions what to write and organizes utterly expensive ads from unrelated entities. Everytime you see an article that screams "that's an ad" or is disclosed as such, well... It is most likely payment for something else.
https://paulgraham.com/submarine.html
Marketing for - conservative agenda, liberal agenda, gun ownership, gun safety, biden laptop, trump files.
If you ask "who is paying for this piece of writing" many times you'll find a pretty clear slant.
It's A16z's blog. What did you want them to do?
I have no idea what the OPs company does, but I do agree with the title.
Some of us do it more than others, depending on the topic or point of the post. Market maps do it a lot more than position pieces, as you'd expect, for instance. Anyways, the feedback is good.
https://www.npr.org/2021/06/25/1010066447/stung-by-media-cov...
nfx has good stuff about network effects
avc talks about stuff from Fred Wilson’s point of view
But my favorite is https://worldaftercapital.org by Albert Wenger, a partner at USV. Because it is clearly NOT about marketing and it’s about sharing his worldview. A venture capitalist talking about a post-capital world!
https://medium.com/mcdonalds-technical-blog/strangulating-th...
It's quite common to gloss over arguments or ignore data that don't support their cause.
Winners in the tech space are increasingly pre-determined by VC-influencer cos/ individuals, who create the buzz around products.
https://benn.substack.com/p/the-posters-decide