VCs need this kind of return in order to produce great funds.
Some gems from @MacConwell of @RarebreedVC in Clubhouse right now:
VCs need this kind of return in order to produce great funds.
Age doesn't matter. But just make sure no one is taking advantage of you. And as such, accelerators can help sometimes w that guidance.
Mac says he's been there and has heard that saltiness. But you're going to get a lot of nos. And you gain more leverage w more progress and traction. So just keeping going.
Mac recommends networking w the pitch organizers.
I'm not sure if it's clubhouse or my internet but I didn't quite catch any of this part.
their website!
Fwiw, I'm a (small) LP and highly recommend checking it out.
I missed most of the responses but I think the tl;Dr was that the founder should think about other travel mkts that are here - like road travel. And keep pitching!
Mac's go-to is honesty. He is direct and upfront w/ a founder. (And I concur!)
Not all vcs do this though.
More from Elizabeth Yin
More from Internet
There are lots of problems with ad-tech:
* being spied on all the time means that the people of the 21st century are less able to be their authentic selves;
* any data that is collected and retained will eventually breach, creating untold harms;
1/
* data-collection enables for discriminatory business practices ("digital redlining");
* the huge, tangled hairball of adtech companies siphons lots (maybe even most) of the money that should go creators and media orgs; and
2/
* anti-adblock demands browsers and devices that thwart their owners' wishes, a capability that can be exploited for even more nefarious purposes;
That's all terrible, but it's also IRONIC, since it appears that, in addition to everything else, ad-tech is a fraud, a bezzle.
3/
Bezzle was John Kenneth Galbraith's term for "the magic interval when a confidence trickster knows he has the money he has appropriated but the victim does not yet understand that he has lost it." That is, a rotten log that has yet to be turned over.
4/
Bezzles unwind slowly, then all at once. We've had some important peeks under ad-tech's rotten log, and they're increasing in both intensity and velocity. If you follow @Chronotope, you've had a front-row seat to the
* being spied on all the time means that the people of the 21st century are less able to be their authentic selves;
* any data that is collected and retained will eventually breach, creating untold harms;
1/
* data-collection enables for discriminatory business practices ("digital redlining");
* the huge, tangled hairball of adtech companies siphons lots (maybe even most) of the money that should go creators and media orgs; and
2/
* anti-adblock demands browsers and devices that thwart their owners' wishes, a capability that can be exploited for even more nefarious purposes;
That's all terrible, but it's also IRONIC, since it appears that, in addition to everything else, ad-tech is a fraud, a bezzle.
3/
Bezzle was John Kenneth Galbraith's term for "the magic interval when a confidence trickster knows he has the money he has appropriated but the victim does not yet understand that he has lost it." That is, a rotten log that has yet to be turned over.
4/
Bezzles unwind slowly, then all at once. We've had some important peeks under ad-tech's rotten log, and they're increasing in both intensity and velocity. If you follow @Chronotope, you've had a front-row seat to the
The numbers are all fking fake, the metrics are bullshit, the agencies responsible for enforcing good practices are knowing bullshiters enforcing and profiting off all the fake numbers and none of the models make sense at scale of actual human users. https://t.co/sfmdrxGBNJ pic.twitter.com/thvicDEL29
— Aram Zucker-Scharff (@Chronotope) December 26, 2018
The new tactics to implement the #CancelCulture are quite ingenious. They are not going after what they want cancelled directly, they are going after how it gets to you! It’s attacking the free market, and it’s harder to spot and harder to fight before it’s done! Read on!
1/
Here’s an example. If there’s a challenge to the normal Social Media platforms, then they aren’t wasting time going after the new app, they are making the app unavailable well more difficult to get. This puts people off from going to the trouble or switching.
2/
They are going to do this in a way you won’t see it coming. They are going to stop it before the source.
Soon, the media is going to be a complete left wing echo-chamber. Social Media, TV and Papers all left wing and you don’t get to say “what about free speech?”
3/
Why? Because they aren’t playing against free speech. They are going after the free market. This also gives you an idea what socialism can and will do.
I don’t expect my account to last long now I’m watching this and exposing it! Please share, stand your ground and don’t quit!
Here’s the proof that CNN are trying to get Fox cancelled at the broadcast level, stop it getting into people’s homes by getting the TV providers to ban it. Again, targeted before what we see as the source. This is also the groundwork for any
1/
Here’s an example. If there’s a challenge to the normal Social Media platforms, then they aren’t wasting time going after the new app, they are making the app unavailable well more difficult to get. This puts people off from going to the trouble or switching.
2/
JUST IN: Apple joins Google in suspending Parler from its app store https://t.co/s7gkiTE15s pic.twitter.com/4sTupD1Uyp
— The Hill (@thehill) January 10, 2021
They are going to do this in a way you won’t see it coming. They are going to stop it before the source.
Soon, the media is going to be a complete left wing echo-chamber. Social Media, TV and Papers all left wing and you don’t get to say “what about free speech?”
3/
Why? Because they aren’t playing against free speech. They are going after the free market. This also gives you an idea what socialism can and will do.
I don’t expect my account to last long now I’m watching this and exposing it! Please share, stand your ground and don’t quit!
Here’s the proof that CNN are trying to get Fox cancelled at the broadcast level, stop it getting into people’s homes by getting the TV providers to ban it. Again, targeted before what we see as the source. This is also the groundwork for any
You May Also Like
Recently, the @CNIL issued a decision regarding the GDPR compliance of an unknown French adtech company named "Vectaury". It may seem like small fry, but the decision has potential wide-ranging impacts for Google, the IAB framework, and today's adtech. It's thread time! 👇
It's all in French, but if you're up for it you can read:
• Their blog post (lacks the most interesting details): https://t.co/PHkDcOT1hy
• Their high-level legal decision: https://t.co/hwpiEvjodt
• The full notification: https://t.co/QQB7rfynha
I've read it so you needn't!
Vectaury was collecting geolocation data in order to create profiles (eg. people who often go to this or that type of shop) so as to power ad targeting. They operate through embedded SDKs and ad bidding, making them invisible to users.
The @CNIL notes that profiling based off of geolocation presents particular risks since it reveals people's movements and habits. As risky, the processing requires consent — this will be the heart of their assessment.
Interesting point: they justify the decision in part because of how many people COULD be targeted in this way (rather than how many have — though they note that too). Because it's on a phone, and many have phones, it is considered large-scale processing no matter what.
It's all in French, but if you're up for it you can read:
• Their blog post (lacks the most interesting details): https://t.co/PHkDcOT1hy
• Their high-level legal decision: https://t.co/hwpiEvjodt
• The full notification: https://t.co/QQB7rfynha
I've read it so you needn't!
Vectaury was collecting geolocation data in order to create profiles (eg. people who often go to this or that type of shop) so as to power ad targeting. They operate through embedded SDKs and ad bidding, making them invisible to users.
The @CNIL notes that profiling based off of geolocation presents particular risks since it reveals people's movements and habits. As risky, the processing requires consent — this will be the heart of their assessment.
Interesting point: they justify the decision in part because of how many people COULD be targeted in this way (rather than how many have — though they note that too). Because it's on a phone, and many have phones, it is considered large-scale processing no matter what.
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
