I have a few of these posts I've written coming out over the next few months that I want people to discuss. Would you prefer I add a disclaimer at the top? Easy enough to add
Personally, I'd say you should definitely add a disclaimer, otherwise a discussion that would likely gain traction is that the information might be being intentionally concealed.
I will add them in subsequent posts. The information is all over our site (they are on our portfolio page, and we wrote about them when we invested) but I am happy to reiterate on each post for each company
The resistance to a seemingly obvious correction seems a little shady. Expecting people to dig around a site to find out your position of financial interest is not reasonable.
Such behavior is disappointing, especially from a top HN account holder.
It's too bad, because otherwise there are some interesting ideas, but TFA is lacking in good faith.
You're nitpicking the term "journalism" here, but even in casual conversation if a friend went on and on about how great a company was and then I later found out that they:
* Got paid a referral fee if I signed up
* Owned shares in the company
* Even was roommates with the founders/CEO but failed to mention it
I would trust that person less going forward.
If you want to be perceived as trustworthy, then you shouldn't say things that you have a hidden interest in saying.
Just to be a little pedantic for a second, isn't TigerBeetle a database management system (DBMS) whereas a TigerBeetle database would be actual data and metadata managed by TigerBeetle?
Every single day I go to sleep with my head buried in my hands because I am not immoral enough to figure out some way of ripping off audiophiles.
You can sell them 3¢ hunks of plastic that do nothing for $150.
It's not even hurting anyone. They're all rich old dudes with dozens of guitars they never play hanging from their walls in a room filled with records they never listen to.
If I could figure out how to sell them 3¢ hunks of plastic that do nothing for $150 I would be very happy, but my conscience won't allow it.
Maybe a CD deionizer? Kinda like homeopathy for electronics. That way it doesn't even need to contain any elctronics. In your workshop on a mountain in Japan you let some electronics imbue it with their spirit. It doesn't even promise to add or remove anything but just "align" the ions!
I got a bottle of Three Chord bourbon last year. Holy cow the blurb on that bottle... something like "One day during a show I noticed how my drink sitting on my amp was vibrating..." and they freaking claim to play music at the casks.
And certainly Mc is not what it used to be (the MC-1700 receiver for example, was great)... you are slamming an "empty box" unfairly. It has:
- A light, well, ok, pretty empty.
- Removable back wall. Eh, ok.
- A IR to turn on and off devices. Hrmm.
- It can control other DinkyLink devices (I did not make that up)
- Trigger control to control other audio devices. Hrmm.
- It is a sturdy metal box (go online and purchase a nice one, I bet they are hundreds of bucks)
Not that it is worth $1500, maybe $300, and at the same quality as that box looks with the glass front, probably $500, but again, saying $1500 for empty box is kind of unfair.
To be honest, I have paid $300 for nice rackmount enclosures with handles that were custom made.
In fairness, that's a cheap, powder coated, folded-metal box so we're not really comparing like-with-like. If one of your goals is to have a nicely-coordinated system that's on display in your home, aesthetics do matter - you're paying for what you're getting, not some unscientific claim of "performance".
This headline is kind of misleading. It's actually someone's personal (educated) opinion on a blog, not a statement of fact. Should be something more like "I think CrowdStrike will be liable" or "CrowdStrike should be liable"
the full headline (at this time at least) is more nuanced than seen here in hn: CrowdStrike will be liable for damages in France, based on the OVH precedent.
