Obviously they haven't launched, but you can imagine that a video dating site is a lot like OKCupid, except everyone has the capability of sending video messages and doing live video chats. They also get to sell webcams, for those that don't have them.
It's interesting that fanboy posts which have no logic or intelligence are perfectly acceptable but when someone who says something negative comes along, the question of "banning" users comes up. That doesn't sound very democratic or intelligent.
Look, I don't like fanboy posts either. But what you linked to is the exact opposite -- it's Paul Graham hate stuff that wants to prove that Paul Graham sucks. What's the point? If you hate him so much, why are you using his site?
This anti YC propaganda completely dismisses Paul Graham and Y Combinator because most of the companies aren't successes. So what? Some are succesful. Most aren't runaway successes. Paul Graham and partners are making money.
What's the big deal? Calm down. No one wants to ban you.
Thanks. I appreciate your candid feedback. If you look at most of my posts, I'm trying to be helpful in guiding other entrepreneurs (e.g. LLCs vs. S Corps vs. C Corps).
There should be an asymmetry there. Positive posts with no content are harmless to forums. They're just pleasantries like the "have a nice day"s of everyday life. But mean posts with no content are poisonous. Especially when they are deliberate trolls, which some of your comments appear to be.
I think you need to consider the difference between trolling and someone who is trying to actually bring up opposing viewpoints. I suppose if you like going unchallenged and having your word taken as gospel, then you don't want to hear other viewpoints.
That's convenient of you to pull out one phrase from a larger argument. I would think your behavior is more indicative of trolling than mine is. The entire thread was making fun of "Clown CO." and not really providing any arguments to support their views.
Providing arguments seems to only be favored when it's used to support the "I love this site" viewpoint but seems to be disfavored when knocks are to be made on Microsft, News Corp, ___ (insert large company disliked by "hackers" here).
You are correct to note that it looks worse than it was in the context of your entire comment. I didn't want to repeat the whole comment here and I probably should have linked to it (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41315).
But the fact of the matter is that ending a comment like that, no matter how thoughtful the rest of the comment, is highly confrontational. It distracts from the point you are making, damages the level of discourse on the thread, and in no way encourages the exchange of "opposing viewpoints".
Weeblyrocks. It is totally ok to have a different point of view. Most of the time if you explain it intelligibly you will end up with more friends. It's not about what you say, it is about how you say it. And remember that just because people do not know who is saying what; that doesn't mean that they cannot be hurt.
what do you care if the fail?
its natural that not all investments are succesful. The investment/risk ratio is so low in YC's case, that it worths it to try different things.
You could argue that intelligent people is not enough to build a succesful company or turn a bad business idea into gold. Or you could argue that this could probably an indication of the "bubble" everyone except founders and invenstors, seems to be praising.
But beyond that, if you are not a music artist that feels this is bad for their work, which could turn out its not, then all you are going to gain is negative attitude from anyone.
by the way, i bet you are among the heaviest users of rapidshare. oh sry, that didn't sound really nice!
you seem not to know then, that an advocate tries to have everyone on their side when making an argument, contrary to the choice of words you are continuesly making that are driving off anyone to even answer to your low level excuses!
Your arguments seem to be surrendered in abstractness leading to lack of usefulness of these, for any contructive dialog or providing the least help to the founders, and yourself to the incompetence of answering to the essence of mine, which arguments seem to really annoy you, thus accusing my use of the english language for your ridicilus attitude, before and now!
I just don't understand why some of these guys are so hell bent on disparaging YC. Whether YC is right or not, time will tell and it's YC that has to worry about it. But, what do _these other people_ gain out of it?
"... The companies were much higher quality than I expected. The founders were nearly all coders and hackers but did a surprisingly good job at presenting their idea, target market, and business model ..." ~ Don Dodge
Is YC being embraced by the larger VC community?
If so, this is a further tick of approval of the YC techniques used to get startups to market. The quoted comments are a remarkable turn-around in opinion from Don Dodge ('Since when does growing $4 Billion a year = Dead?') and It's great to see the candidates flexing their skills of persuasion. Selling the idea(s) as much as building it.
How much effort went into making sure other VC's could also see the new recruits?
I personally liked anywhere.FM on first use. There may be other sites that provide the same features, but I don't know them.
My first instinct is to use the website to share my music with my brother who lives on another continent
34 comments
[ 5.5 ms ] story [ 720 ms ] threadhttp://techdumpster.com/2007/08/10/anywherefm-going-nowheref...
Although I agree that anywhere.fm is not clear winner the way you present yourself prevents anyone from taking you seriously.
This anti YC propaganda completely dismisses Paul Graham and Y Combinator because most of the companies aren't successes. So what? Some are succesful. Most aren't runaway successes. Paul Graham and partners are making money.
What's the big deal? Calm down. No one wants to ban you.
Pretty much pure trolling.
Providing arguments seems to only be favored when it's used to support the "I love this site" viewpoint but seems to be disfavored when knocks are to be made on Microsft, News Corp, ___ (insert large company disliked by "hackers" here).
But the fact of the matter is that ending a comment like that, no matter how thoughtful the rest of the comment, is highly confrontational. It distracts from the point you are making, damages the level of discourse on the thread, and in no way encourages the exchange of "opposing viewpoints".
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41342
It's a bit much to call that an "opposing viewpoint." Opposing yes, but it has about one bit of content.
by the way, i bet you are among the heaviest users of rapidshare. oh sry, that didn't sound really nice!
It's fair to be a Devil's advocate to serve two functions:
1. Limit hype 2. Hope that the intelligent folks on the other end take this into account and figure out a real business model.
FYI, I don't use rapidshare at all.
Your arguments seem to be surrendered in abstractness leading to lack of usefulness of these, for any contructive dialog or providing the least help to the founders, and yourself to the incompetence of answering to the essence of mine, which arguments seem to really annoy you, thus accusing my use of the english language for your ridicilus attitude, before and now!
Is YC being embraced by the larger VC community?
If so, this is a further tick of approval of the YC techniques used to get startups to market. The quoted comments are a remarkable turn-around in opinion from Don Dodge ('Since when does growing $4 Billion a year = Dead?') and It's great to see the candidates flexing their skills of persuasion. Selling the idea(s) as much as building it.
How much effort went into making sure other VC's could also see the new recruits?