Are there any legitimate wikipedia competitors though? I still view genius and hypothesis as not in the same field of "encyclopedia knowledge base." To really be a competitor to wikipedia you'd need to look like an actual wiki in my opinion.
I had the very same exact experience. It is astounding to me that there are no legitimate competitors to Wikipedia at all after 15 years. It's funny how social networking is such a competitive space from facebook --> instagram --> snapchat etc but it's still just Wikipedia --> Wikipedia --> Wikipedia
There's a few people doing this with Wikipedia content anyway, of course, not to mention the content farms geared towards search queries, which just makes the competitive space for a raise VC-capital to invest a lot of time and effort into making an ad-supported traditional encyclopedia that's actually good seem even less attractive
I'm wondering the exact same thing. And also, I am wondering if all these companies that are clearly later than seed stage get the exact same offer of 7% for 120k. Is there somewhere in YC terms that says that is the only deal they offer to new companies, or are we to assume they potentially are recieving more diversified deals?
Giphy clearly comes to mind as something recently created that is in the consumer tech/data market which is going to become a behemoth at its rate of growth.
None of this clickbait nonsense compares to what Facebook and Google have on most of us and the average American. These people that run something like this and boast about knowing "When the last time you had Chinese food was" are literally the information industry's equivalent of click farms and scraper sites.
Are Facebook and Google selling granular personal information to third parties and individuals on specific people by request?
I fully acknowledge they utilize the information they mine about you to optimize their ad networks, but that's quite a bit different from releasing the information for a price.
Yes, they are. You can sign up for retargeting information from them, and cross reference that with those people when they visit your site. You pay it forward and pay a bit per segment, but you get the same results.
Retargeting doesn't release the information to you. They are selling access to their network under specific conditions. Retargeting just lets me say, "make sure X sees my ad", it doesn't let me say "I know of X person, send me all their information so I can do what I want with it."
There's a pretty big difference. Facebook and Google would not be in business if they let third parties aggregate their detailed personal records.
There is a huge difference between aggregate metrics and detailed individual personal information. It's such an astounding difference, that I'd love to hear what you think is so similar between "people between 30 and 40 like your product", and "Leon Kowalski from 1187 at Hunterwasser, who is 32 years old, divorced, pays alimony, has $30,000 in debt, has been arrested three times, once for felony assault, buys fetish sex toys online, and participates in white supremacy forums likes your product."
I wouldn't call most Bloomberg articles "clickbait". I am glad they are exposing the existence of these companies. And I think you're missing what distinguishes the two: with FB/google, you can opt out. These other players are aggregating public records. There is a difference.
What a big fall from grace. Really wasn't expecting this to happen :( I think now the elephant in the room is that just how much of the actual company is built on substantial, tangible, and valuable assets. Unlike some people here, I really don't believe the entire thing could possibly have been a massive lie/fraudulent venture. This is probably textbook "overstretching the truth" and failing to deliver before everything implodes in a massive blaze of glory.
Does anyone here that actually has even slight first/second hand knowledge of the inner workings at Theranos know just how much of it is an 'actual, tangible business?'
I think Wiesel has done much good and his writing and very public campaigns to insure that the horrors of the Holocaust are never forgotten are what he shall be remember for. Still, he is a man and a man is nothing, if fallible. In his memoirs, "All Rivers Run to the Sea", he exhibits a certain hostility when his writings are questioned; he quotes from his essay "A Plea for the Survivors":
"You who have not experienced their anguish, who do not speak their language and do not mourn their dead, think before you offend them, before you betray them.… Wait until the last survivor, the last witness, has joined the long procession of silent shadows whose judgment one day will resound and shake the earth and its Creator."
Some allege that parts of Night are too implausible and historically inaccurate. But then again, I think he wrote it as a novel rather than a historical document.
I think for a lot of people, it's simply impossible to believe that people could be that cruel. Most of us have not seen and blissfuly have not lived through the horrors of World War II. I feel like this element, more than anything else, drives a lot of the nonsense views that the Holocaust or the wanton slaughter of people the Japanese deemed inferior is a made-up number or that it "wasn't that bad" and so on.
I remember when the Holocaust was being discussed in school and having to read books like Night in school and I was actually fascinated by this; the depths of good and evil that people can do are simply unfathomable. A British journalist wrote about the aftermath of the Battle of Shanghai when he visited what was once a densely packed suburb, "I saw only 5 Chinese, who were old men, hiding in a French mission compound in tears."[1]
This is the most correct and obvious/very low cost way to do it that you almost start to think Amazon is in on the conspiracy with these fake reviewers because they have something to gain that we are not seeing.
That's the thing I don't get. Amazon wants to have reliable reviews, right? If people have to go elsewhere for reliable reviews those better-run sites will start affiliate programs with other sellers. That's a real risk for Amazon. I don't really care where I buy dog food or computer accessories or whatever. I live and breath AWS so they've got me there, but buying goods from them or target.com or wherever else is ultimately all the same.
"In the potlatch, the host in effect challenged a guest chieftain to exceed him in his 'power' to give away or to destroy goods. If the guest did not return 100 percent on the gifts received and destroy even more wealth in a bigger and better bonfire, he and his people lost face and so his 'power' was diminished."
