caveman82

Reddit's no longer a cashstrapped startup with limited resources and options. It's ultimately their choice to stick with Amazon. If Amazon has been giving them the run around for more than a whole year, maybe it would've been a smart decision to move to something else.

Last time they had this deal (a few weeks ago), there was an option to defer filing until Jan 1st, to save on 2008 fees and administration tasks. I assume you can opt to do so again.

Which begs the question of justin.tv's whole raison d'etre:

How the f--- does facilitating self-perpetuated voyeurism (to this particular degree) add value to society?

Since when do ads need to make sense?

So you are assuming most ppl who live in NYC live in an apartment with an elevator and a security guard, on the upper east side/midtown/chelsea. Unless you are running in finance and high-society circles, no one gives a crap that you live in an apartment that costs over $2500/month.

If one is resourceful(and most starving artists/actors/entrepreneurs are) you can find apartment shares in plenty of neighborhoods for under $800/month. It's not luxurious but living in those circumstances is no less worthwhile.

I was at a web 2.0 presentation couple weeks ago and there was a company presenting their product, which turned out to be essentially a social-bookmarking-aggregator. What's next? An aggregator for that as well?

As a recent NYC "settler" I found this essay insightful in a very empathetic and visceral way. Thanks pg.

That logo is so slick it must be a great framework!

Does anyone know why fb is so slow all the time especially with all the resources they have?

Smile :-)

This article does seem to illustrate the priorities of the Obama-voting demographic. The vast majority of Clinton's supporters simply don't spend their time on facebook, blogs, digg, wikis and youtube.

They should do a poll similar to this outside of a local starbucks as well. I'm sure that will be equally enlightening.

I agree (in that the article is weak). He breaks down a incredibly complex economic model with a painfully crude analysis. If that's his hunch fine, but to assert it like it's a dissertation is almost shameful.

This type of article is a complete waste of space, other than it serves as an example of how not to deconstruct a type of behavior.

This tool is definitely crude (a newly created site is worth at least $50) but gives a good perspective on the factors one might use to interpret a site's value.

This article forgets to factor in that there are a large number of investors that relish buying low during times of recession. The overall size of the pie may be decreasing but there may be more slices to go around.

basecamp you are now on the hotseat...

I agree in the sense that the internet conditions us to accept quick, bite-size blurbs of information. This has resulted in a society of instant gratification and petty distractions. Seldom do people have the patience or discipline anymore to read an enriching piece of literature that actually has substance or to embark on a fulfilling journey of mastering a certain craft. This behavioral byproduct of the internet is also similar to what happens when all a person absorbs is television programming and magazines.

Great article, will you be my co-founder?

The article's fault is not that the message itself is overtly obvious, it's that it neglects the more important question of: Why there will always be a large number of entrepreneurs in spite of the low success rates of starting a business and the enormous amount of work, dedication, and "luck" required to be immensely successful.

But that would be opening up an economic/philosophical can of worms that is neither here nor there.

The problem with your argument is that you don't isolate factors when arguing your point. I'm not arguing that there aren't other factors that make a person successful. I'm saying that all things equal, the influence of one's surroundings can have a significant positive effect on a persons chance of succeeding.

So all Harvard grads in big i-banks work 16 hour days and are coke addicts?

Let's put something else in context, one could make the argument that a majority of college grads from any school embark on "a journey of empty pursuits for the almighty dollar...". I hardly think this is symptomatic of going to a top20 school, but how much blind ambition a person has.

The problem with the classic argument of "whether or not it is worth paying a hefty premium to go to an elite school" is that it discounts the impact of intangibles, such as positive peer influence and brand value.

I say yes. The effect is even more pronounced in highly competitive industries like finance. I've found that an overwhelming majority of successful recent grads in that industry (2-3 yr exp analysts making $300,000+/year) are top 20 grads. I doubt the average 18-22 yr old is going to exhaust the knowledge that their professor can impart, but you put an above average student at a school where he's rubbing shoulders with future entrepreneurs, politicians and thought leaders there's no doubt that it will increase his likelihood of success.

So back to the question: Is it worth paying $200,000(over 4 years at Skull and Bones College over paying $10000 at Big State U? In many circumstances, yes.

And yes--there are always exceptions to this rule but the discussion is about the overall trend not particular instances.

Tao of Steve:

1)Be Desireless 2)Be Excellent 3)Be Gone

25+Master's in Life (oh yea,I have a B.S. in EE too)

Hey folks, I am indeed the notorious "poacher" and the poster boy for unethical YC practices.

View my response here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=62109