bornonmars

Wait a second, we need a revolution?

We all agree on the negative effects of those externalities, but pricing them in before completing the transition to sustainable systems would only make resources MUCH less affordable for the end-consumer - you, me and everyone else, given the basic needs those goods fulfill.

Okay, here's a thing - how about developing a more accurate risk profile assessment and pricing structure than any other broker out there (just like some lending platforms doubled the accuracy in evaluating credit ratings in comparison to large banks and built their business around that technology) and then buy in advance low risk properties, while charging relatively high fees? You'd have to keep the asset on the books (while knowing the average time required to sell it for a low commission) till it's gone, but eliminate the pain number 1 for consumers, as in most cases they're ready to be charged more to get rid of the property asap.

Just throwing it there. Crazy enough to make sense.

The cool thing about real estate agents (unlike attorneys) is that the great ones charge just as much as the bad ones.

Takeaway? Mainly just reinforcing the fact that this market is still immensely inefficient.

I don't agree. They already focus on upside risk, the main fear being to miss out.

There's no bias left, at least not there.

Ok. There's the attraction that Spotify might have had for that kind of market, along with some synergies in its structure i.e. 1) major shift within an old & monopolistic industry being left behind by new technologies and 2) similarities between the larger music and video industry that Spotify can leverage (having learned from music already). THAT said, the road to disruption can be taken through a highly profitable niche first - avoiding the pressure of being omnipresent from day 1, which is what Spotify will inevitably do. We're in the film space and I'm happy about this development. Competition within new online distribution channels is only good for us.

Never said it's dying down, on the contrary - the supply of such skills will eventually have to be much more common given strong demand. The new uncommon will be something else though.

"But if I had to do it over again today, I might choose bio-informatics or nanotechnology.”

In 20 years from now, IT skills will better be more than common. The internet will be in a post-maturity stage. The new "lack of" won't be of CS folks. It may as well be of what he mentioned.

Robo-pet anyone? Disruption of the nannies' market.

Yes, but I wouldn't even go so far as to cite the 100% new market creation - where's the usual timing / major shift argument? If that actually applies for real, forget the fallacy. In all other cases, feel free to keep it in mind.

b2c: depending on your users, you may even prefer .co to .com - esp. if you target users like me. b2b: generally careful here - except if you target startups like ours.

So yeh, directly correlated to your target being tech savvy or not I'd say.

Points 1. and 11. thumbs up! Not agreeing with 7. though, cause framed that way it actually ends up being that fluff you wanna avoid

Quantum internet is "starting to become feasible"? It will be in their daily lives so much faster than that.

Did you look at what's really driving the value of Bitcoin? Fine, the price will readjust, but you should forget most classic financial analysis tools atm. That said, I'm building a new little model justforfun to predict the price through some unusual growth drivers.