Get this man on an NBA team so that he can come in when the game is 7 point game with 30 seconds left, and teams give up on the interminable foul game because it's hopeless that he'll ever miss.
"Here’s another question: What does it mean for a business to fail? A coffee shop that stopped serving coffee would probably be considered a failure. But an expense filing startup that stopped managing expenses? The idea failed, but the business didn’t. A startup can discontinue its products, replace its founders, and wipe out its investors, and still be the same startup as it was before. It can fire everyone—which is equivalent to missing payroll, for all practical intents and purposes—and still be considered alive. In other words, so long as a startup could still succeed at anything, it hasn’t failed."
The startup is a gamble that a team can find a way to make money. It tries to say what it will do, but that plan may fail. As long as the team has the money to pivot, there is no issue. As one of our board members said, "No one is going to care how you got there, just as long as you got there." He was referring to earning a 5X exit for the VCs. The problem with the pivot is when it requires more money. Then things are dicey indeed. In my experience, there'd better be a very good reason for putting in more money when the first thing didn't work. The VC's may have their own reasons for not owning up to a failure and putting in more money. It might be they can keep a valuation for the moment that looks better than writing off the thing right when they may be in the middle of raising a juicy new fund that'll be throwing off 2% annually for themselves!
Broadly, because he's ignoring laws that Congress already passed. If Congress creates an agency or allocates money for some purpose, the president can't just shut down the agency or decide they don't want to spend the money. If that were the case, what would be the point of Congress at all? (There are also all sorts of other insane problems with a private citizen doing this, and seemingly unilaterally deciding, line-by-line, conflict and entanglement-by-conflict and entanglement, how public money gets spent.)
And there are definitely lots of lawsuits (https://abcnews.go.com/US/new-lawsuit-doge-14-states-musks-sweeping-authority/story?id=118783945), though obviously all of this also raises the question if they'll ignore the courts too. If Congress says "it is the law to do this" and they're comfortable saying "we don't care and we're going to ignore that," you could certainly imagine them saying the same thing if courts say "no really this is the law."
I would like any app that gets me rats but doesn't tell me what to do with them. Too many apps want to control the rats post-sale
Gotta come to NY, big rat TAM here in the city.
A different kind of pivot! From the farm to world record holder on the basketball court -- and he never even made the pros! https://thegoldenmean2040.substack.com/p/becoming-the-best-in-the-world
Get this man on an NBA team so that he can come in when the game is 7 point game with 30 seconds left, and teams give up on the interminable foul game because it's hopeless that he'll ever miss.
Holla, Benn!
You know that LCD Soundsystem song. It goes: "You don't know what you really want..." - so we want what others want us to want.
i think about this scene a lot https://clip.cafe/the-italian-job-2003/you-got-no-imagination/
"Here’s another question: What does it mean for a business to fail? A coffee shop that stopped serving coffee would probably be considered a failure. But an expense filing startup that stopped managing expenses? The idea failed, but the business didn’t. A startup can discontinue its products, replace its founders, and wipe out its investors, and still be the same startup as it was before. It can fire everyone—which is equivalent to missing payroll, for all practical intents and purposes—and still be considered alive. In other words, so long as a startup could still succeed at anything, it hasn’t failed."
The startup is a gamble that a team can find a way to make money. It tries to say what it will do, but that plan may fail. As long as the team has the money to pivot, there is no issue. As one of our board members said, "No one is going to care how you got there, just as long as you got there." He was referring to earning a 5X exit for the VCs. The problem with the pivot is when it requires more money. Then things are dicey indeed. In my experience, there'd better be a very good reason for putting in more money when the first thing didn't work. The VC's may have their own reasons for not owning up to a failure and putting in more money. It might be they can keep a valuation for the moment that looks better than writing off the thing right when they may be in the middle of raising a juicy new fund that'll be throwing off 2% annually for themselves!
Could you explain why what Elon is doing is illegal?
I know you touched on that but I am assuming that given so many enemies he has, if what he is doing is illegal, he would be drawning in lawsuits.
Broadly, because he's ignoring laws that Congress already passed. If Congress creates an agency or allocates money for some purpose, the president can't just shut down the agency or decide they don't want to spend the money. If that were the case, what would be the point of Congress at all? (There are also all sorts of other insane problems with a private citizen doing this, and seemingly unilaterally deciding, line-by-line, conflict and entanglement-by-conflict and entanglement, how public money gets spent.)
And there are definitely lots of lawsuits (https://abcnews.go.com/US/new-lawsuit-doge-14-states-musks-sweeping-authority/story?id=118783945), though obviously all of this also raises the question if they'll ignore the courts too. If Congress says "it is the law to do this" and they're comfortable saying "we don't care and we're going to ignore that," you could certainly imagine them saying the same thing if courts say "no really this is the law."