The article quotes someone as saying: "Selfish, greedy, untrustworthy: That is the image of the entrepreneur in Japan since around 2000"...I don't think Startup culture in America avoided that image after the dotcom bubble and even with all of its success, there is still a lot of suspicion
Youtube to Myspace does not seem like the same as the other comparisons. Myspace is/was a social network and better in-page videos -- no matter where they are served from - would only make Myspace more appealing because of how they catered to music bands. to say that Youtube stole Myspace's traction is like saying imgur stole Reddit's traction when instead, it's more likely that imgur's great service accelerated Reddit's popularity (at least with memes...I'm talking quantity, not quality :)) -- and vice versa. There was no reason that couldn't have happened with myspace/youtube
Yeah, as the other commenter says, 'siphoning' is probably better though it is still stealing if you don't think of traffic as a zero-sum game. It's after all only in zero-sum games like physical goods that stealing reduces value to the owner.
Here's more context about Findthebest with someone from there trying to claim that they have a large editorial team that hand edits the lists http://www.seobook.com/scalable-seo
I'm glad he's at least not trying to claim it was "satire" because that's an insult to satire. He wrote complaints that lots of SF people share and that's probably why he thought it was a great thing to publish. But there's a difference between:
1. SF has a bad homeless problem
2. Why can't SF clean up after all these dirty drunk conniving homeless people?
And being unhappy about finding a date can be handled differently than trying to blame SF's "ugly" women for acting self-confident and rational
I think jobs and the economy matter most to people and since Bloomberg was mayor during the 2008 recession, that's going to make him seem worse than he might have though he may not have been able to affect the worst of the economical situation in any way.
In the story linked to above, it says less than half of surveyed think that crime has improved under BLoomberg. That is just plain absurd no matter how you look at the stats...Bloomberg's (arguably too strong) law policies have made the city safer than it was in 2002. IT just shows how hard it is for people to remember what things were like a decade ago, due to nostalgia, etc.
Also you say he won his re-election "just barely" but that's because he bent the term limit rules for what most people considered in an illegitimate way
I remember very well what New York was like 10 years ago. And 20 and 30. I can't say that Bloomberg's policies have made the city any safer than it was 10 years ago. That is, I can't say that his policies are responsible for the reduction in (certain type of) crime. (Some types of crime are actually on the rise in NY). What I can say is that violent crime statistics have been in severe decline nationally since the end of the 1970s. New York pretty much follows the trendline exactly and doesn't seem remarkably exceptional in this.
Certain neighborhoods are still high crime. Yes, I would say that 99% of Manhattan is about as safe as Disneyland, but the policing has been especially disproportionate between the use and effectiveness of things like Stop & Frisks, constant & disruptive patrol car drills crosstown during rush hour, and "Show of Force" demonstrations of the ESU in full body armor and M4 rifles stationed outside popular tourist areas. Some see these things as safety and security and others see them as waste and symbols of a state abusing its power.
A lot of the revitalization efforts for areas of the city have been in the works since the 1950s (pay attention in NY to how much is named after or dedicated to Robert Moses). Case in point, the Times Square Redevelopment Project (though that was completed under Giuliani). When I was a child growing up in this neighborhood, there were porn theaters, street prostitutes, hustlers, con men and pickpockets everywhere. People got mugged in my elevator or at the payphone on my corner regularly.
Nearly 80% of the storefronts in Midtown were vacant. My mom was a corporate real estate broker in the 70s and had a listing on 57th street and 5th avenue going for $5/sqft (in what was later the Playboy Enterprises building). Let that figure sink in for a second.
I'm not nostalgic for those times, but back then we also had a bit more community than now. I actually knew by name the homeless people and the street hustlers in my neighborhood. My mom took care of most of them in her nursing work at St. Luke's Roosevelt. That sense is totally gone. Nightlife and entertainment in the city is _dead_ (we'll see how the Space nightclub does when it opens though). You used to regularly have people playing music on the street without too much bother. I remember a lot more people just being in the street and friendly (for NY standards) all the time. Everything is much more conservative and elitist than it used to be, but that's just as much times changing and culture moving on as Bloomberg is lucky to be in the right place at the right time.
I get really passionate about this topic and am being a bit rambly, but two years ago I left New York City. I'm likely returning next year, but I had to get away and it's no longer somewhere I could imagine living the rest of my life. It's just not that much fun a place to live anymore. Almost every NY-native I know in my age group either can't stand to live there anymore or has been priced out. Most of my friends have moved away or want to. We're going to places like Portland and New Orleans...or moving to Europe.
As an aside, some folks would say that the J-O theaters actually served an important function in our community and that with their closure, something is lost forever.
Samuel R. Delany wrote a really good book about this and his experiences called Times Square Red, Times Square Blue. Not a book to read if you are at all homophobic or squeamish reading about sex acts though.
Many, many references to Jane Jacob's The Death and Life of Great American Cities.
From the article: "Using data from the March Supplements of the U.S. Census Bureau‘s Current Population Survey and the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, they look at the cognitive, noncognitive and family traits of self-employed individuals who have incorporated businesses and compare it to the characteristics of salaried workers and the self-employed who don’t have incorporated businesses."
So the population of the study is people who have incorporated businesses. So by "Troubled Teens", it means "Troubled Teens" who did well enough to incorporate a business. But that doesn't count the many troubled teens who ended up poor and/or imprisoned...hopefully parents aren't getting the idea that it's better for their kid to get in trouble if they want to be rich later
In the current gold rush, there are so many hokey startups with buzzwordy derivative missions ("we're the Airbnb for Big Data ROI!") that a great satire site could be made from copying their mission statements and change a few words around. FakeValley kind of tries too hard
also: I don't think you should promote yourself as a satire site. That's kind of like going around telling everyone you're a hilarious and witty comedian.
Sanity, or the appearance of, is your friend here. If this coworker is lashing out wildly, then the problem of him being bad for the team will become clear to the people who can take care of it. But it sounds like you're spending too much energy being upset by this. it's not your decision, its your manager's...this co-worker is doing enough harm without you harming yourself with resentment
