Like you know, everybody's forum is so interesting that nobody reads anything else because there are too many interesting forum titles and you don't know where to begin.
Because the C?I?A? and N?S?A used to use pre-OSX mac computers extensively at the time that M-Soft got sued by the DOJ because there were a lot less OS8 / 9 hackers than their were window hackers. Then by some funny coincidence, OSX gets based on UNIX so now any government hacker anywhere can hack into your Mac with the greatest of ease. Why would you want to rock that boat if you were the government? You wouldn't. You'd say, "As long as you keep making it easier for us to spy on people, you can bundle anything you'd like."
Well, you'd be surprised at all the features they're constantly sneaking into iTunes for example that is sort of making it like a new operating system. Which works best with their own products (iPod). See the pattern? We get people to get our stuff, then we make sure our stuff works best with our stuff and slightly less so with the competition's stuff ...
Wait - first you say that there's no basis for AI because of the historical leadup to today ... then you state in this post that people (stock speculators) who act based on systems based on past variables don't think clearly because they fail to take into accounts new development (regime change) which loosen the deterministic grip the past has on the future. So which is it - there is no AI soon because nothing in recent history indicates that there will be, or ... just because recent history fails to indicate that there might be a basis for it, doesn't mean that it's not just around the corner? A bit contradictory??
Actually it may be a big deal. Fairly recently scientists have determined that some very stupid behaviors that some animals engage in, to their own detriment, is the direct result of toxins produced by parasitical bacteria. So think of all the stupid things humans do to their own detriment as a species. Whose to say whether we do these things consciously ... or as the result of being manipulated to our detriment by bacteria ... or whether or not millions of computers are subtly affecting our thinking with electro-magnetic frequency manipulation ...
There are quite a few semi-retired executives and management consultants who become "turnaround" experts. Usually they associate themselves with private equity firms or semi-formal investment syndicates. But they tend to focus on more established companies. A more startup-oriented version of this would be "Entrepreneurs-in-residence" at VC firms. They claim to be developing ideas, but in reality they have some association with VCs who want to keep them around for whatever reason so they just hang around until they come across an idea and then the VCs invest on the basis that the E-i-R is the "lead managing entrepreneur." But like most women, they tend to be suspicious of anybody that wants to have anything to do with them and tend to go for people/companies who don't even know they exist. It's a sick world that we live in.
Well, that's hard to say - many cults actually make associations with successful people and then claim that their success is based on the influence/teachings of the cult. I'm sure some people think scientology is a cult (it is in the process of being declared criminal in some EU member states) and Sky Dayton seems to be doing ok. And of course, the trickiest part is that the group always claims that its output is beneficial and if you don't understand how it is, well then that's why you need the group to explain it to you.
Yes, that's why I said it's not perfect. The thing is, to some people, the cult's methodology works for their success (since many mind-control techniques are not evil by themselves, and can be used to improve one's life if used wisely).
You have to look at not only those successful cases, but also the rest of cases---if the group has contributed to the success of a few celebrities, but not for the 99.9% of other members, then the success cases are likely to be by chance rather than the real result of the cult.
So then how do you distinguish that? Like does YCombinator method make people succeed? Or is it good at identifying likely future successes and convincing them to associate with YCombinator? Or both? How do you gage the effect either way? In other words, does YC make the successes, or is it better at systematically finding them and associating with them?
You can't draw a concrete line, and it may take time. However, if, say, a few years later, 30% of YC companies succeeds big and 50% of them are producing good results (not necessarily in their startup, but by taking important roles in other companies), then people can hardly say YC is a destructive cult.
Depends on how you look at it. Most web 2.0 innovations are just reiterations of low-yield activities designed to encourage phatic communication at the cost of personal and corporate productivity. Who knows what effect that will have on, say, our national economy?
Time will tell. Meantime, all you can do is to watch the concrete numbers. Note that the line between destructive cults and other groups are not only blurry, but some cults may morph into a normal group over time, or vice versa.
If you really suspect a certain group is a cult and want to do something about it in a short span, watch a concrete prediction the group makes (somehow lots of cult leaders often makes them, e.g. the world will end by year 20XX). Then compare the outcome. Don't be destructed by what the member of the groups says, or how the group is organized and managed. Look for the objective evidence.
