I disagree with the parent comment even though I share a lot of the same thoughts, feelings and desires. Vengeance would surely be great, for a moment. But your words say it well. Who cares what people think? Your point on ego is spot on.
FWIW, OP focuses a little too much on "finding a connection" and consistently saying, "that's what life is about." IMO, life isn't about anything. Calm down. Relax. Everything is arbitrary. While I think it's great OP has found meaningful activities, the things he finds enjoyable sound dreadful to me.
I hate to unveil, but you guys realize that my post is a satire right? Told in the words of the self-proclaimed "sensitive hacker," e.g., the Asian and Caucasian American computer programmer in his mid-to-late 20's who go to Mexican burrito places for work lunches and talk of big dreams and sulk on lonely nights, imagining triumphs over past slights,
> But my conscience tells me that I have to tone it down a bit because I'm not a jock, I don't want to stoop down to the same level of those who've bullied me.
He's exactly like the jock in that he carry the same insecurities/low self-esteem and look for an arbitrary status symbol (e.g., funding, startup exit) in his given social circle to overcompensate, belittle those who don't have it. Except he can't admit it to himself and is convinced that he's better (when he's no better) than Jerry McGuire and Arnold Schwarzenegger aka the sales guy or the project manager who are slightly duchey and hits on the office manager and graphics designer girls.
> I live in Brooklyn (but not Williamsburg); I'm not a hipster ... I'm not a jock and I'm not a hipster, I'm a sensitive hacker.
Although he participates in the same consumerist activity as the "hipster", going to Whole Food's, indie shows, bicycle ride-along's etc. He consider himself a special and unique breed, a "sensitive hacker" just like the "hipster" who believe their outwardly bohemian, counter-mainstream "attitude" somehow validate themselves; When Arduino and HN, like American Apparel is just niche marketing.
> I'll start a blog with a side-bar with me as the Founder of X ... I'll tweet for a break, I'll share on your FB wall,
He is convinced that his goal to "give back" and "blogging/startuping" is altruistic and giving back to community - when it's really his need to feel altruistic. What he really wants is to have a soap box to stand on, a podium to have his voice heard. The irony is that as much as he wants to be heard (and validated), he doesn't think really to listen to those right besides by him but is scared that he isn't heard - so aims to shout louder and try to drown out all the other "shouters."
> I'm going to book a ticket on Stubhub for a show next weekend that I and my GF can go to, starred artist on her Spotify ... I'm saving money consciously for a down payment for a house after reading more about passive income because I'm growing to become an adult.
He follows life like a mom checks off a grocery list or a Cosmos reader following the sex tips on Cosmos. Does he really know his friend or significant other or himself, or does he just like the idea of the clique, traveling, the relationship, Brooklyn or fears the missing out as he hear those around him get "richer" and "happier."
The biggest tragedy or comedy in life, depending on how you look at it, is people locking themselves in mental prison and self-styled martyrdom all in the name of the pursuit of freedom. There comes a time when a man must ask themselves whether a Renee Zellweger nose completes him - just shut up ... reset that broken nose.
This may be a bit too anecdotal, but I didn't hear about this campaign until a week before it happened. In my opinion, the organizers failed to consider awareness propagation time and as a result TDWFB felt rushed, sloppy, and silly. According to wiki the organizers announced this protest on January 10, 2014 for the day of February 11, 2014. We even saw posts on HN "wishing to add more features" to the Github projects that helped websites easily show their support.
I realize I'm sounding quite negative (sorry), but really this entire campaign should have given itself a bit more runway for prep and awareness. Just my two cents.
But on a serious note, I wonder how much that 2009-2012 bump has to do with inflation or a lack of other opportunities in the market. Maybe I am out of touch, but it seems like there are less and less places to put your money. Not to suggest that startups are a bubble. The rise is probably due to YC becoming a better filter, picking better horses in the race.
Prior to using Snapchat, I truly wondered what the big deal was. Why is the valuation so high, and what value proposition does it offer? I'm certainly not an expert in the matter, but perhaps my observations can relay some insight to others who just can't seem to grasp it.
Snapchat is a tool that primarily allows a user to become closer to (1) acquaintances, and (2) existing friends who may have drifted away over time. Let's rephrase this a few ways to unveil the value. Snapchat is a communication tool that's useful for overcoming shyness. Snapchat allows users to break the ice, facilitate conversation, and overcome awkwardness. Snapchat allows the user to converse with acquaintances and distant friends that would otherwise be too awkward via other methods like texting, email, Facebook, etc.
In fewer words, Snapchat makes communication trivial.
Just Snap a picture of something, add some silly text or a drawing on top, and push it out to everyone. After all, what's the harm? The picture goes away, and if no one Snaps back it doesn't really matter. There's no evidence of a failed attempted communication, e.g., an un-responded email, text without a reply, comment on a wall without a Like or a response. In this way, Snapchatting is a lot like fishing. Cast your snaps, see which old friends or acquaintances reply, and strike a conversation, hang out, hookup, etc. later on.
The disposable aspect of Snapchat provides a new medium for conversation starting. You know what conversation leads to? Deeper friendships. And who's really interested in knowing who your friends are? If you aren't making "new friends" on Facebook, but elsewhere, you can see why Facebook might be startled. But that fear starts to compound when you consider aging relationships are being nurtured on Snapchat as well.
After all, if you aren't reconnecting with your current friends on Facebook, what good is it? All that's left is the News Feed and what everyone is up to. Hm. Enter Snapchat's "My Story" feature, where you can essentially create a 24-hour lasting Snap, very similar to status updates on Facebook. Interesting.
I'm not sure Facebook being cool or uncool has much to do with it. I suggest the bigger factor is being able to communicate with peers, despite shyness. Overcoming awkwardness, facilitating conversation with a lack of confidence, or whatever you want to call it... Snapchat is a layer below Facebook. Said another way, turning acquaintances into friends (Snapchat) pre-empts the need for maintaining friendships (Facebook).
I don't have any data, but from everything I've observed the "sexting" aspect of Snapchat is wildly overblown. Most people just use it for goofy little communication between friends.
I guess people keep bring it up because they think it's funny or think it makes them seem cynical, but it would be a mistake to think Snapchat is primarily used for sexting.
I would disagree from the reddit threads revolving around snapchat and nude pictures and 4chan threads. I would think its a mistake to think its not used primarily for sexting.
I don't have any data either but I think comments like op above are really trying to legitimize a sexting app. Lets take the recent Tumblr acquisition. Most tumblr blogs involved porn although they were able to legitimize is it as a better blogging service.
no but they are representative of their primary demographic. Your personal experience means a lot less than the two biggest sites used by snapchat's target demographic.
how is it unsubstantiated ? reddit has subteddits dedicated to sharing snapchats you can see subscriber numbers
4 Chan is a little harder to measure but the fact the threats are brought up several times a day days a lot
Although it would be unethical for the Snapchat folks to do a statistical sample to find out, I'd estimate that sexting is no more than 1% of Snapchat, probably more like 0.1% or 0.01%.
This seems like the type of video I'd expect in a response on Reddit. That is, it's a response that's trying to be funny (or link something funny) rather than continue the conversation at hand.
I was really hoping it would be a link providing evidence to one side (Snapchat is primarily sexting) or the other side (only a small % of snapchat usage is sexting).
Except that Facebook posts are public and everyone can see the failed communication attempt. Or Facebook messaging which is no better than email/text messaging and demands a reply. I love snapchat for exactly this no reply needed nature
i have no problem admitting this to my friends, snapchat is currently my favorite app on my phone. most people i tell that to dont understand and think im a creep, and they are the ones who have never used it.
however with that being said: the app is free and has no ads.... they must have some crazy ideas in stock.
I think they'd struggle more than some companies that have done that though - Facebook and Twitter have huge network effects which makes them super difficult to replace, Snapchat just seems so replaceable. If they annoy people in hyper local friendship groups they'll just find something else.. as long as they convince their friends to follow they lose nothing.
Interesting. I thought it was the opposite direction. Since the nature of a snap is short term, people are more likely to pay attention because it will be gone. Thoughts?
I like your take on it turning acquaintances into friends. I think it is spot on.
For a while I have been saying that Snapchat is for sharing moments digitally. It makes sense that sharing moments, digitally or not, brings people closer.
You almost sold me on it, but the fact that I can only send photos still prevents me from using it. My girlfriend and I communicate via text a lot. If we could exchange random photos and messages through Snapchat, I'd try it out. As it stands, I have no desire at all to jump between messaging apps to talk to the same person in different ways.
Uh snapchat certainly shows you if someone viewed your snap. It also shows you what 3 people anyone snapchats with the most (best friends are publicly viewable), a public score system which can be used to track usage, as well as showing you everyone who views your timeline photos.
Also, the alternatives are too formal (don't get auto erased), or far too dramatic (Facebook, where who knows what your privacy settings are non trivial to deal with, and new friendships aren't kept away from prying eyes of your friends and family).
new friendships aren't kept away from prying eyes of your friends and family
This is an often overlooked point...even in the many casual interactions that turn into (casual) friendships later on...raising the stakes has little upside and significant downside
This and yesterday's thread [1] are fascinating. Here we have lower-classes seeking direct retribution against higher-classes. Contrast to yesterday's article involving upper-classes discussing how to uplift lower-classes via social policy changes and enforcing certain belief doctrines, e.g., do XYZ, not ABC.
Of course it's easier to rail against the the former camp than the latter; we all believe in some degree of property rights, i.e., you bare the fruit of your labor. However, I propose both positions are unjustified and both parties need to bow out of one another's business.
Not trying to push libertarian beliefs (I am not one). But everyone is an asshole, out to serve their own ends, trying to sculpt the world in the way they would have it.
> One is punished for success via taxes, fees, fines, etc. by the "have nots"
Care to explain that more, the tax system certainly does not punish the haves; it in fact rewards them. By the very nature of the marginal utility of money, the current tax rates hurt the have nots far more than the haves. The burden is quite simply not equally shared by all, it is born mostly by the have nots.
Sorry, removed that piece from the original post as I feared it would detract from the main point. The use of "haves" versus "have nots" was intended as an example of divide and conquer. It was not intended as two distinct groups, with obviously distinguishable beliefs. Persons shift beliefs to exploit ends that are most beneficial to them. For other readers, he's referring to:
> This is classic "Us versus Them" (divide and conquer) that systemically makes it worse for most everyone, especially the individual. One is punished for success via taxes, fees, fines, etc. by the "have nots"; while the "haves" punish you for practicing a different set of ideals or lifestyle choices that go against societal norm.
Again, I meant to show an example. Whether the "haves" or "have nots" are in camp "punish by taxes" or camp "control lifestyle" is irrelevant. Persons shift between camps, when it's convenient. Similarly, all sorts of other camps exist towards other ends.
Ok, my point is simply that notion that there exists a valid camp where haves are punished by taxes is simply false, the haves like to claim that, but it's simply not true. The haves are not punished by the system, they're rewarded by it.
Again, I didn't intend to setup this argument. However, all one needs to show is that a "Have" is materially worse off thanks to taxes. This gets easier or harder depending on definitions.
Clearly, Have versus HaveNot is not binary; there is a range there. Who is a Have and who is a HaveNot? If a Have is a $20k/yearly worker and a HaveNot is without a job entirely, we could easily argue that taxes are punishing the Haves.
I don't think anyone would reasonably call 20k a year a have. In fact we've already seen a pretty good definition of the split in the 99% movement. Haves are the upper class, not the middle class and below.
I appreciated your comment. It's easy to overlook definitions and categorically group things based on simple criteria checking. People who are currently buying BTC is a shared characteristic of (1) speculators, (2) early adopters, and (3) probably other actors.
Regardless if they are speculators, does their initial reason for adoption matter to the definition of an early adopter? Speculators may at any time become users, and normal users may at any time start speculating.
