That is exactly how you run a business. Business isn't just about products. You need people to buy them. If your brand is tarnished because people don't like you, it doesn't matter how good your products are. If you run something like Pax and people don't want to come because you have a reputation for having a bunch of arrogant a-holes, you will not have a viable business model for long.
Most people miss the human aspect to business. It's one of the most crucial elements that affects marketing, branding, customer service, sales, etc. If people hate you, no matter how much they like your products, you eventually fail.
I've just finished reading Altered Carbon[1], and quite enjoyed this quote:
'The personal, as every one's so fucking fond of saying, is political. So if some idiot politician, some power player, tries to execute policies that harm you or those you care about, TAKE IT PERSONALLY. Get angry. The Machinery of Justice will not serve you here — it is slow and cold, and it is theirs, hardware and soft-. Only the little people suffer at the hands of Justice; the creatures of power slide out from under -with a -wink and a grin. If you want justice, you will have to claw it from them. Make it PERSONAL. Do as much damage as you can. GET YOUR MESSAGE ACROSS. That way you stand afar better chance of being taken seriously next time. Of being considered dangerous. And make no mistake about this: being taken seriously, being considered dangerous marks the difference, the ONLY difference in their eyes, between players and little people. Players they will make deals with. Little people they liquidate. And time and again they cream your liquidation, your displacement, your torture and brutal execution with the ultimate insult that it's just business, it's politics, it's the way of the world, it's a tough life and that IT'S NOTHING PERSONAL, mil, fuck them. Make it personal.'
I'm going to run a software convention and exclude anyone associated with the GNU or how about anyone that is homosexual?
I know there have been cases that have come up on HN where people have been legally excluded and because it was against the ideals of the majority of the community, it was "discrimination". I don't like this guy either, but if you allow this sort of behavior, don't complain when there are other groups excluded in the future.
and btw, it's not how you run a business. If he was an asshole when he's there, then just kick him out. It's very unprofessional and childish to exclude someone from your show based on feelings and emotions.
You don't even know what discrimination is. It is the prejudicial treatment of an individual based on their membership in a certain group or category. In other words, excluding someone associated with GNU or anyone who is a homosexual is discrimination but excluding someone who is an asshole is not discrimination. Please do not use the term incorrectly.
This isn't "excluding a group." This is excluding an asshole.
How do you conflate imposing consequences on one person's bad behavior, over which they have full control, with excluding homosexuals? Seriously. Is this is a thing where you haven't fully woken up yet and you're just typing to type? Because I've done that and it's the only reasonable explanation what you're saying here.
One of the great things about running your own business is that you get to decide your values and navigate by them. Deciding one of your values is never to reward people who are assholes to your customers is an entirely reasonable call.
"If you run something like Pax and people don't want to come because you have a reputation for having a bunch of arrogant a-holes, you will not have a viable business model for long."
So, if I start a restaurant and decide that only Christians can eat here, would that be okay with you? After all, non-Christians may tarnish the quality of the restaurant.
If I decide to not hire people with earrings, are ugly (let's say I have a hooters), or I just don't like, I would either get lawsuits for discrimination or from the ACLU.
How is this any different? and why shouldn't I also be able to choose whom I do business with?
First, if you only allow christians into your public[1] restaurant that would be illegal. But no one would come because they found out you were an ass and the government would take you to court for violating the Civil rights act.
Second, you are in your rights to do those things. You can't discriminate based on race, age, gender or religion; tats, piercings and ugliness are fair game.
If you are in the US, CA or EU you should read up on what the local human rights/civil rights laws entail.
Edit:
There are exemptions for "members only" places, which is different than public restaurants. but then you would no longer be a restaurant but considered a club. For example, the gym, curves, is members only. One of the membership requirements is being a woman. If they decide to open a coffeeshop on the side they wouldn't be allowed to have it open to the public. It's either fully open or mostly closed, now in between.
"Second, you are in your rights to do those things. You can't discriminate based on race, age, gender or religion; tats, piercings and ugliness are fair game."
Really, when you think about it, not being a christian is a choice (which is why I didn't mention race, age, or gender). Just like this guy being an asshole.
It's not much different. Someone is getting excluded from business because another group doesn't like them.
While I think that anyone should be allowed to discriminate against anyone they want to in private forums (i.e. restaurants or businesses), laws prevent you from discriminating on the basis of sex although not appearance (with the exception of a few states) or if the position is covered under the Bona Fide Occupational Qualification exception. That being said, "being an asshole" isn't a covered category under anti-discrimination law, so they're perfectly allowed to discriminate all they want.
Irascible human being is not fit for PR/Marketing. Whether he's a christian or has earrings does not come into factor.
Its called judging a man by the content of his character and/or skills. Its not discrimination. Someone with Parkinson's is unfit for a bomb disposal unit. Someone with arts degree is useless as Rocket scientist and useless at a NASA convention.
Having ill-considered opinions down voted isn't a violation of your right to free speech (which was never guaranteed in a private venue in the first place, by the by).
Instead, it's an expression of everyone else's speech. You're allowed to be wrong. Others are allowed to point it out.
Bluetooth, the Internet, Smartphones, Twitter, Facebook.
All were technologies that had to incubate quite some time, some for a decade or more, before they were widely usable.
It concerns me when a tech writer looks at something and says "it will never be useful within 6 months" when there is a ton of infrastructure involved.
It's not about the immediate payoff, it's about the future.
People resist the idea because the answer is too simple. "Fats" are better than "Carbs". So lard is better than a banana? Ugh.
It's not the broad category of "Fats" vs "Carbs". It's the TYPE of food. Eat good food. Period. Not something made in a factory. Twinkies: out. Soda: out. Standard pizza with refined grains and loads of cheese: out.
Eat healthy food: the right meats, fruits, vegetables, whole grains and lots of water. Don't eat crap. Exercise.
It really isn't rocket science, but when we make one food group "bad" and the other one "good" just so we have another excuse to eat junk, we lose.
> People resist the idea because the answer is too simple. "Fats" are better than "Carbs". So lard is better than a banana? Ugh.
> It's not the broad category of "Fats" vs "Carbs". It's the TYPE of food. Eat good food. Period. Not something made in a factory. Twinkies: out. Soda: out. Standard pizza with refined grains and loads of cheese: out
People resist this idea because it is too simple. The reason behind the whole article is trying redefine what "good food" is. The last twenty years we've been told that fatty foods were bad for us, and high-carbonhydrate foods were good for us. That we should have 60%+ of our diets as carbs.
There is now mounting evidence that this is all bad advice.
I know many people now who trim the fat off the meat whilst eating unchecked quantities of pasta because they believe this is what good food is and what 'eating well' means. This is wrong and people need to be re-educated.
I totally agree, the problem is that it's harder for people to eat healthy than simply pick a single thing and demonize it. Plus, telling people to eat healthy doesn't sell a lot of books.
On top of that, phrases like "eat healthy", "eat healthy fats", "eat cleanly", etc are ambiguous, and not helpful. This is because each person's definition of "healthy" and "clean" is different.
We need to be very specific when describing what to eat.
True, but I think the sentiment is correct at least in selling food. It's hard to get rich selling spinach, but it's easy to get rich selling Sugar-Frosted Excitement Pops - now made with whole grain-like substances!
Fad books sell to a lot of people over and over. Of course you can get rich helping people to just eat healthy, but it's harder and you likely don't get the repeat buyers. But write a book saying x is evil or fat is not your fault because y is evil and you'll get tons of buyers.
It's also more expensive to provide quality fats, proteins and carbohydrates. Compare the cost of a big mac to a free-range organic chicken breast and some fresh vegetables.
Very true. It sounds like the author is doing some hardcore stuff that he needs a bit more brute force. For the majority of us, OS X may be exactly what we need.
Kudos to the author on his depth of hardcore computing, but there are a million ways to use computers, hack, and code and the majority of them don't need that level of l337ism.
I guess it's something to complain about. It might be best for some to remember: Hacker News is not work. Reading is a supplement to work. If the Jokes bug you, maybe you can take the day off and get something done.
Furthermore, if it was work, if you can't take 1 day away from it to have a little fun, you are going to going to beat the rest of us into a pine box.
Life isn't about what you get - it's about enjoying what you get.
It's also very unambitious.
Life's also about working to get what you want, then enjoying what you wanted so much, then realizing that you wanted something more, and then working harder to get that as well.
If you are always happy with what you have, then, by definition, you don't want anything else. As much as I would love to be happy, the way I see it, if you are always happy, you have already lost. Unless, of course, you have already made your billions.
I'm happy now. I imagine I'd be more happy if I had more stuff/cash, for some definition of happy. Therefore it's good now and it only gets better.
The problem starts when you decide that you don't have enough, and this makes you unhappy. Then you pursue the stuff thinking it'll make you happy. Starting from that viewpoint, I don't think it ever will.
I had a Kia that did the job for 230,000 miles. If all you want is transportation, it does the job.
If you want all the nice things that come with a BMW, however, well, you get what you pay for.
From the article:
"Of course, it's hardly the same as an iPad or a Xoom or a Galaxy. It doesn't have any cameras. It has a slower processor. It's not for power users. The video support is pretty limited. A few Android programs still won't run on it. And dedicated gamers will doubtless find it frustrating."
It's an attention grabbing headline which is the purpose of a headline. But the author is not truly comparing Apples and Oranges. He simply wanted to highjack eyeballs.
He's publishing online; of course he wants eyeballs. But not many people know that the Nook can do double duty as an entry level tablet, with access to the full Android market. Given the cheaper price, I'd say this is a worthwhile article, in the sense that it will probably steer certain people away from overpaying for designer tech they don't need.
If you're smart, you don't pay full price for a BMW. I bought my coupe for not much more than the KIA would have cost. In every respect it beats the KIA, except for the carcinogenic new car smell.
However, and this is where the metaphor perks up instead of breaking down, the BMW is not in fact enormously ahead in every category. In most it is only fractionally ahead, and there are even a few where you could argue the toss (I get good mileage, but that is because I don't usually drive like a maniac. :D
Likewise with the Apple products. Usually they are fractionally better in lots of small ways, with perhaps one or two glaring exceptions either way, e.g. awesome battery life, but you can't change the battery.
Currently the two main systems I'm using are Apple and Win 7. With both I have a mouse with a scroll wheel. Scrolling is just a little bit better on the Mac than on Windows. Is this a deal-breaker? Does this one thing mean that Windows is OMG teh-suxxors? Of course not.
But the little things do add up.
Similarly with the iPad vs competitors. I saw one youtube video where some fanboy was gushing over his iPad competitor, but even he noticed that it took awhile (~30 seconds) to boot up. The iPad boots significantly faster than that. Is that a deal-breaker? Of course not. But the little things do add up.
If you install KatMouse (http://ehiti.de/katmouse/) it boosts Windows' scrolling functionality so you can scroll background windows without giving them the focus or bringing them to the front. (Like Mac OS X supports). Not a fight, just a must-have accessory.
Something else that perplexes me is that even when a window has focus sometimes it still won't scroll. Doesn't matter how many times I click on it. But if I go to the sidebar and jiggle that, it gains the ability to respond to the scroll wheel again. Odd.
I might not want a Kia but I certainly don't want to bother with a BMW. I need transportation more than I need to make a fashion statement. So far, nobody is making a tablet for me -- a nice affordable Honda.
Of course there is someone making a tablet for you... Apple. The iPad is in no way the BMW in this instance, it's a nice fully loaded Honda Accord (or Civi, whatever floats your boat). Hell there are cellphones that are quite more expensive than the entry level iPad. Five hundred bucks for a great tablet (and an awesome user experience) is honestly quite cheap in the grand scheme of things.
Define 'beat'. Right now there's nothing on the market that can match both the iPad's features and experience and its price. The Nook Color is intriguing as a cheap Android tablet, but it's not at all in the same league as the iPad or Xoom.
If you're looking for a car that will just keep going, get a Jeep Wrangler.
I have one, it's got 140,000 miles on it, but it still runs like a top and I have absolutely no desire to sell it (and selling it would be easy. I work in the automotive industry).
To stay on topic, I think there is something to be said about the "cheap" brands. My Jeep, is a "cheap" car (it's worth about $5000), but it's a workhorse. I don't think twice about hauling the dog around in it after she's been swimming in the mud, I don't bat an eye when I need to literally pressure-wash the interior, I patched a hole in one of the seats with duct tape, I once made a top for it out of a tarp and some rope (I had my little sister with me and it started raining), there are scratches along the back tailgate from loading it full of mountain bikes and shuttling them up the side of a mountain, I've slept in the back of it many times, etc. etc.
A friend of mine has a Porsche Cayenne. It's really nice, and has a matching +$100,000 price tag. He doesn't let the dogs in it, he covers the leather seats with a blanket when he sets anything on top of them, it's never left the pavement, spilling anything on the interior would be a catastrophe, etc.
From my perspective, he's getting less value for his $100,000 than I am for my $5,000 because he's constantly afraid of breaking it or spoiling it (well, losing on his investment, more accurately).
I think the Porsche vs Jeep debate could be the same as the Nook vs iPad debate. Yeah, an iPad can "do more", it's more valuable, costs more money, it's shinier, it has a faster processor, it's a "better".
But I think I'd be in constant fear of breaking it. It would probably stay in my house most of the time. The nook, on the other hand, costs 1/4 of an iPad, it would go with me everywhere.
Somebody like me would probably get more value out of a nook than an iPad, despite the iPad being technically better.
The paint could blister and peel, the door seals could rot, the dashboard could crack from UV exposure, the shock absorbers could leak, the wipers could seize, the steering could become loose and noisy, etc.
I haven't owned a Kia, nor do I have anything against them, I'm just being pedantic and pointing out that you could fulfill a 100k powertrain warranty and still end up with a car that's mostly trash. :-)
They also have a 5-year 50,000 bumper-to-bumper warranty. I had an issue with my glovebox on my an Hyundai Elantra (same company) It was my fault (long story), but they gladly replaced at 40k miles.
I'm a huge fan. I now own a Kia soul. In the two years I've had it it's been rock solid.
A Kia is a Kia (Sportage). You get a modest car for a modest price. But in fairness, the paint, interior, controls were in great shape on the day it died after 10 years. No complaints.
Like I said, I was merely responding to the parent comment's assertion that you couldn't have a car that was mostly trash at 50-100k miles if it has a 100k powertrain warranty.
>I had a Kia that did the job for 230,000 miles. If all you want is transportation, it does the job.
Thanks for the datapoint. I drove a rental Kia once, and it was...not totally crap, but lacking in fit-and-finish (e.g., the steering wheel vibrated a lot). But that was in 1996; it's good to know they've improved.
The South Korean car industry has improved by leaps and bounds over the past fifteen years. The difference between a Kia or Hyundai in '96 and today is massive. It's really worth taking another look at Kia's products, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
I had a Kia that did the job for 230,000 miles. If all you want is transportation, it does the job.
If you want all the nice things that come with a BMW, however, well, you get what you pay for.
From the article:
"Of course, it's hardly the same as an iPad or a Xoom or a Galaxy. It doesn't have any cameras. It has a slower processor. It's not for power users. The video support is pretty limited. A few Android programs still won't run on it. And dedicated gamers will doubtless find it frustrating."
It's an attention grabbing headline which is the purpose of a headline. But the author is not truly comparing Apples and Oranges. He simply wanted to highjack eyeballs.
