If you mean it prevents you from raising capital by selling a percent of the company then yes, that’s pretty wacky. Profitable companies can afford to be idealistic. Others that are burning billions don’t have that luxury.
May need to read it a few more times. Apart from the comment being written by someone who likes to identify themselves as “GreedClarifies”, it doesn’t take more than 4th grade reading comprehension to put two and two together.
- immediately calls their structure “strange” thanks to Ilya’s “idealism”.
- immediately calls him the “man” for his talents but a fool for what other than his ideals
- also labels Helen and Tasha (in quotes for some reason) as fools
- labels the board as “comically poor” for no other reason than they disagree with Sam’s supposed profit motive
Do we really need to draw a diagram here? It seems like you yourself may be out of your depth when it comes to reading comprehension.
It's not an entirely different concept. The comparison he replied to was about both groups funding art to advance their causes and promote their perspectives (pro-Western, pro-God, etc.). That's a perfectly acceptable comparison and it's accurate. The differences you listed are also valid.
Kits. That was the fun thing about it, you'd mix the dough, and add the cheese and sauce. If you were lucky, there were some leftover scraps in the fridge that you could use to add as toppings. Learned the basics of making pizza that way.
My uncle recently had this procedure here in the US. His hospital tried to push him quickly toward a surgical option, but he did his own research and eventually found this. It cost him $15k out of pocket, he now has a clean bill of health, and as a bonus he avoided potential/likely erectile dysfunction.
So you're saying that, in the event of owning your own data and being asked for it, you would get a lawyer because you acknowledge that there could be unforeseen conseqeuences and aspects of the request that you might not understand. But you would simultaneously prefer to let a megacorp own your data so you don't have to think about any of that?
So you're happy to give away your data, but also insistent that you should pay someone to review the request for your data. Apologies if I'm misunderstanding your comments (very possible), but I think I at least understand why some folks are confused.
I did say both of these things. Because there are upshots and downsides to each. Both are true.
You can't escape the shittiness of this problem by running your own server. It's a bad situation either way.
The root of the problem as i read it is overly zealous law enforcement and a judge that is not acting as a proper check on their power. It's a political problem. It can't be escaped with purely technical solutions like who stores the data.
I wouldn't be surprised if a lawyer would want to view all the footage themselves, before making any decision like that. Hopefully, you aren't keeping 6 months worth, because lawyers typically charge by the hour.
Point taken, but I don't see enough of an upshot to giving away your data from the very start — retaining zero control so you don't have to deal with requests that may or may not ever happen.
I think there may be a significant advantage to running your own server: you can controll how long you want to keep the data. For example, you can keep data from cameras recording the street/yard for longer and delete footage from inside the house daily (or choose to not even record when you are at home).
It seems the author defers to others, doesn’t communicate his own needs/desires, then gets upset when he doesn’t get what he wants. He explains it away by saying he was focused more on the art than the money — but clearly he’s focusing on the money a lot.
It might be difficult to honestly confront your difficulties with confrontation/communication, but I imagine it’s more worthwhile than stewing, rationalizing, etc.
