I recently read Elinor Ostrom’s Governing the Commons and have been evangelizing it so enthusiastically that I figured I’d do a quick writeup of its main points, and why it’s been so transformative to my thinking.
The past few years have generated a lot of interest, but also a lot of questions, about how our digital infrastructure gets made.
Life on the internet can feel like a proverbial family reunion dinner. One relative makes an off-color remark, and all the kids leap half out of their chairs, screaming at one another.
When it comes to making money, software developers are an odd bunch. Developers produce code, and code is in high demand. At a glance, it seems obvious that this work pays for itself.
(I don’t write about this topic often, so forgive me for any awkwardness.)
Today the Drupal world is up in arms because a longtime leader, Larry Garfield, was quietly expelled from the community after months of harassment and bullying, due to his private kink lifestyle.
This week, Apple refused to comply with a federal court order to help the FBI unlock the iPhone of a San Bernardino shooter.
A Pew Research study released last month found that 40% of U.S. Millennials believe government should be able to censor speech that is “offensive to minority groups”, higher than any other generation.
Much has been made of Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan’s decision to use an LLC, not a nonprofit, to oversee $45B worth of Facebook shares.
An article written by Ian Bogost in The Atlantic today declared that programmers should “stop calling themselves engineers”, calling it a disservice to the civic professionals who build our skyscrapers and heavy machinery.
The Internet got itself up in arms recently about Marco Arment’s decision to support his new podcast app, Overcast 2, through donations only, embracing patronage as an explicit revenue model.
I’ve been silent these past couple of months, partially because I’ve been trying to listen. Although I’ve been quiet online, I’ve been keeping busy, putting myself out there in analog form, learning from others, testing theories in the wild. Some of the things I felt most sure about, I’ve now rejected. Some ideas have shown positive signs beyond what I could have hoped for. Some ideas have pleasantly popped out of nowhere, things I hadn’t even considered.
We see this story crop up every once in awhile on Facebook: “share your truest self”, “post about your real life”, “why do we only share sunsets and puppies?”. While I admire the sentiment, as it stands today, I don’t think we can expect people to share their unfiltered selves in a one-to-many format (i.e. broadcast social media).
My uncle, Fereidoun M. Esfandiary, was a futurist and transhumanist who changed his name to FM-2030 many decades before I was born, because he believed that “the years around 2030 will be a magical time”.
Milan Kundera’s novel, The Unbearable Lightness of Being, uses the phrase “Es muss sein” (“It must be”, in German) to explore how we make our most meaningful choices in life.
In middle school, I had a math teacher who didn’t let us use calculators. We had to do all our simple arithmetic in our heads. When I got to high school, my freshman year algebra teacher kept his slide rule proudly displayed in its leather case in our classroom. Calculators, my teachers claimed, made us lazy.
This week, Chris Dixon voiced a concern many of us feel for the future of technology: that in the battle of proprietary services (like AOL or Facebook) vs. open protocols (like HTTP or SMTP), we’re currently on the wrong side of history. This topic is timely for those watching the story unfold between Meerkat and Periscope (which was recently acquired by Twitter).
I had a great conversation recently about creativity: how we define it, how it’s manifested, and how it plays into other parts of our life.
I attended Y Combinator’s second Female Founder Conference this past weekend, and I left feeling inspired. Here’s why:
When we talk about changing venture capital, there are a couple of areas that get the bulk of attention:
Let’s try an experiment. Try to guess who made the following statements below:
Recently, I mused aloud to a couple of friends that I seem to know a lot of women who are going to graduate school, but that most of the men in my peer group were entering tech or entrepreneurship.
I’ve noticed an interesting pattern among a couple founders I’ve spoken to recently.
I’ve been thinking about peer-to-peer models today, and what early learnings signify for how these businesses might work at scale.
A successful company, in my mind, is one who changes culture for the better. Therefore, one question I ask myself when evaluating companies is: how will it reach the mainstream?
At Collaborative Fund, we’ve been talking about how investors and founders can align incentives for the long run. Conventional wisdom dictates that successful founders eventually exit (for example, going public or getting acquired) in order for their investors to get their money back. But we believe there’s a third option available to many founders: staying private and profitable.
Since Yo announced its $1M raise last month, there has been no shortage of commentary weighing in on whether Yo - an app that does nothing more than send a “Yo” push notification to one’s friends - deserves a dollar of investor money.
There have been a couple of Product Hunt data projects floating around the internet lately. Leo’s analysis looked at trends in product names and taglines. Mattermark’s analysis looked at the correlation between Product Hunt and fundraising. And Artiom’s project visualized metrics around products and contributors.
We’ve all heard the refrain, “You can’t fight progress”, in response to dialogue about the tradeoffs between technology and a healthy, balanced society.
Recently, I finished George Saunders’ In Persuasion Nation - a collection of short stories that satirize the American obsession with materialism and frivolities. I enjoyed his writing immensely, but I also noticed that these critiques, published in 2007, are starting to feel dated.
Betable’s Stefano Bernardi published an excellent post last month on the rise of the thematic VC: firms that focus their investments on a specific vertical, such as education or finance. We discussed whether thematic VCs were the same as mission-driven or “point of view” VCs, and decided they were not. So this post is about mission-driven VCs.
When scraper sites and content farms began to creep their way up the search rankings, Google released the first of its infamous Panda algorithm updates in 2011 to stop them.
In startup world, a “unicorn” is a company that’s achieved a $1B valuation in public or private markets (thanks to Cowboy Ventures for the definition).
In a recent article, NYU professors Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis shed light on some of the dangerous assumptions we make about big data. One of those was making future bets based on the past while your measurement tool is changing.
In the offline world, there are a number of public services running in the background to keep our society running smoothly. Things like street lights, policemen, waste management and sewage.
Among philanthropic funders, there’s been an emerging interest in so-called “innovation funding”: the seeking out of riskier ideas with transformative potential for society.
When I published a post last week about alternate funding structures that better align innovation with business, a common response I got was, “Isn’t that what B Corps are for?”
Silicon Valley types are characterized as people who care about not caring.
Philip Evans of Boston Consulting Group recently gave a talk about how the traditional business model - one with a scalable value chain - is breaking down. For some companies, including marketplaces and user-generated content platforms, the vertical value chain is breaking up into a horizontal one with many microsuppliers. Evans suggests that business strategy is becoming about curation of the herd rather than executing upon a traditional business model.