They have little choice. Funding is contingent on growth, but that growth can only happen if no one really understands the funding situation. Founders have to tell the lie – that everything is fine, that a feature is going to launch even though the engineer for that feature hasn’t been hired yet, that payroll will run even though the VC dollars are still nowhere on the horizon.
Lying is a requisite and daily part of being a founder, the grease that keeps the startup flywheel running.
Often it feels to me like economic success is one big pyramid scheme... Here's an article about the central role lying plays in the startup model where companies raise billions based on a mirage of get-rich-quick success they create.-mouser (August 02, 2015, 12:02 AM)
;D
Give them food then.
I read a novel about gold fever in California. If you want get rich put a restaurant.
Our era is a terrorific story about lies.
Perhaps the best business is teaching other good business. And if for some reason the thing goes wrong at least you have no risks.
-Contro (August 24, 2015, 06:14 PM)
...all those companies that served the needs of startups back in the 90s (Dell, OfficeMax, Staples, Kinkos, Steelcase, etc.).-40hz (August 25, 2015, 01:06 PM)
...all those companies that served the needs of startups back in the 90s (Dell, OfficeMax, Staples, Kinkos, Steelcase, etc.).-40hz (August 25, 2015, 01:06 PM)
Dell? Dell was started (as PC's Limited) in 1984, changed its name to Dell in 1987 and went public in 1988. It didn't really become a major player itself until the early 90's.
And if any company illustrates the need to lie to grow a startup, it's Dell.
In the mid to late 80s, when tech publications ran regular comparisons of personal computers, PC's Limited systems could only be ordered direct from Michael Dell, and he made sure they got hand tuned souped up systems that outperformed the off-the shelf systems they got from major manufacturers. As a result, Dell's PCs won every benchmark for a while (until the other companies wised up) and became the standard others were judged by. But unless you worked for PC Magazine or PC World, you could not get a system from Dell that performed like that.-xtabber (August 29, 2015, 02:29 PM)
One of the lesser-publicized facts of the recent hacking of the Ashley Madison website, is that nearly all of the female accounts were fake -- created by the company to make it look like the site was active and popular: http://gizmodo.com/almost-none-of-the-women-in-the-ashley-madison-database-1725558944
This seems to be the standard operating procedure of website these days, where seeming to be popular is a necessary first lie.-mouser (August 29, 2015, 02:41 PM)
One of the lesser-publicized facts of the recent hacking of the Ashley Madison website, is that nearly all of the female accounts were fake -- created by the company to make it look like the site was active and popular: http://gizmodo.com/almost-none-of-the-women-in-the-ashley-madison-database-1725558944-mouser (August 29, 2015, 02:41 PM)
This seems to be the standard operating procedure of website these days, where seeming to be popular is a necessary first lie.-mouser (August 29, 2015, 02:41 PM)
There's actually very little of "Hey, check out this site/product/video because it's a good site/product/video."-Deozaan (August 29, 2015, 03:40 PM)
I also used the dating services and still do once in a while. Once you do it, you develop an eye for what is real and what isn't. From my own experiences, 80% of profiles are unreliable. Most of them are straight up fake. if they are not fake, there are pretty significant lies going on regarding their relationship status. There are also a ton of lies in how people represent themselves. So my conclusion after the whole thing was that it's fun to try once in a while, I got some dates out of it. Some were good, most were not. But that's real life also. Ultimately, I felt they didn't make anything easier for me.One of the lesser-publicized facts of the recent hacking of the Ashley Madison website, is that nearly all of the female accounts were fake -- created by the company to make it look like the site was active and popular: http://gizmodo.com/almost-none-of-the-women-in-the-ashley-madison-database-1725558944
This seems to be the standard operating procedure of website these days, where seeming to be popular is a necessary first lie.-mouser (August 29, 2015, 02:41 PM)
I remember when the internet explosion was happening. I checked out a few of the dating sites. Membership was free. But communicating with women cost money. I got these invites from women with pictures. It was obvious that the women who posed for the pictures would not have any trouble getting dates. More like they would have trouble keeping undesirable guys from communicating. I never sent a communication because I was sure the scam was send invites to suckers(er, I mean male clients of the service) to get them to pay to send messages to the babes. Then the babes beg off for some contrived reason. They have to because they are fictional characters. It is not worth the effort to try to get $5 or $10 back so the suckers just cancel the service. Same old scam, new ad copy. :)-MilesAhead (August 29, 2015, 03:15 PM)
Often it feels to me like economic success is one big pyramid scheme... Here's an article about the central role lying plays in the startup model where companies raise billions based on a mirage of get-rich-quick success they create.Would the flip side of the coin, be the 'entrepreneur' who specializes in buying big financially healthy businesses or factories, then laying everyone off and selling off all the assets at a profit?They have little choice. Funding is contingent on growth, but that growth can only happen if no one really understands the funding situation. Founders have to tell the lie – that everything is fine, that a feature is going to launch even though the engineer for that feature hasn’t been hired yet, that payroll will run even though the VC dollars are still nowhere on the horizon.
Lying is a requisite and daily part of being a founder, the grease that keeps the startup flywheel running.
http://techcrunch.com/2015/07/25/startups-and-the-big-lie/
(see attachment in previous post (http://techcrunch.com/2015/07/25/startups-and-the-big-lie/)) (https://www.donationcoder.com/forum/index.php?topic=41364.msg386086#msg386086)
from slashdot.org-mouser (August 02, 2015, 12:02 AM)
For example: James Garner in Cash McCall.-bit (August 29, 2015, 10:10 PM)
...all those companies that served the needs of startups back in the 90s (Dell, OfficeMax, Staples, Kinkos, Steelcase, etc.).-40hz (August 25, 2015, 01:06 PM)
Dell? Dell was started (as PC's Limited) in 1984, changed its name to Dell in 1987 and went public in 1988. It didn't really become a major player itself until the early 90's.
And if any company illustrates the need to lie to grow a startup, it's Dell.
In the mid to late 80s, when tech publications ran regular comparisons of personal computers, PC's Limited systems could only be ordered direct from Michael Dell, and he made sure they got hand tuned souped up systems that outperformed the off-the shelf systems they got from major manufacturers. As a result, Dell's PCs won every benchmark for a while (until the other companies wised up) and became the standard others were judged by. But unless you worked for PC Magazine or PC World, you could not get a system from Dell that performed like that.-xtabber (August 29, 2015, 02:29 PM)
Hmm, if I had known that I would have purchased all my PCs from Neil J. Rubenking. ;)-MilesAhead (August 29, 2015, 02:36 PM)