Curt Doolittle

Form: Quote Commentary

  • by Bill Joslin Change or influence a person’s aesthetic and their valuation will

    by Bill Joslin Change or influence a person’s aesthetic and their valuation will shift (their ethics). And conversely, clarifying one’s valuation will shift his aesthetics. I say this because as far as I can see, what is considered by many as the downside of reason – i.e. emotion, intuition, bias, – are really “fast-thinking” (stimulus response-reactive) processes which operate concurrent to “slow-thinking” (reason, logic, analysis) processes. And these influence each other (i.e. bias confirmation etc)…. but that also means the “fast-thinking processes” (our intuition) can be trained just like our reason. As slow-thinking clarifies and de-contextualizes common operations; fast thinking processes update in response. As you see the detriment of (anything really) – but, say emotional or moral reasoning – your preference for operational reasoning increases. And as one pursues operational reasoning, the fast-thinking process adapts – and we “feel” (disgust, tensions, suspicion whatever) when confronted with moral or emotional reasoning. Our biases and intuitions have “updated” – and the reverse is also true: our new biases and intuitions assist our ongoing reason. Since I’ve begun “training my mind” (really looking at, and attempting to, understand topics like philosophy etc) – I can no longer (no exaggeration) tolerate American TV and 99% of popular music. Specifically – as the time-horizon of my valuations increased, the foundation of those valuations changed, as those valuations changed, my tastes changed. -Bill Joslin

  • by Bill Joslin Change or influence a person’s aesthetic and their valuation will

    by Bill Joslin

    Change or influence a person’s aesthetic and their valuation will shift (their ethics). And conversely, clarifying one’s valuation will shift his aesthetics.

    I say this because as far as I can see, what is considered by many as the downside of reason – i.e. emotion, intuition, bias, – are really “fast-thinking” (stimulus response-reactive) processes which operate concurrent to “slow-thinking” (reason, logic, analysis) processes. And these influence each other (i.e. bias confirmation etc)…. but that also means the “fast-thinking processes” (our intuition) can be trained just like our reason.

    As slow-thinking clarifies and de-contextualizes common operations; fast thinking processes update in response. As you see the detriment of (anything really) – but, say emotional or moral reasoning – your preference for operational reasoning increases.

    And as one pursues operational reasoning, the fast-thinking process adapts – and we “feel” (disgust, tensions, suspicion whatever) when confronted with moral or emotional reasoning. Our biases and intuitions have “updated” – and the reverse is also true: our new biases and intuitions assist our ongoing reason.

    Since I’ve begun “training my mind” (really looking at, and attempting to, understand topics like philosophy etc) – I can no longer (no exaggeration) tolerate American TV and 99% of popular music.

    Specifically – as the time-horizon of my valuations increased, the foundation of those valuations changed, as those valuations changed, my tastes changed.

    -Bill Joslin

    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-01 22:23:00 UTC

  • by Bill Joslin Change or influence a person’s aesthetic and their valuation will

    by Bill Joslin Change or influence a person’s aesthetic and their valuation will shift (their ethics). And conversely, clarifying one’s valuation will shift his aesthetics. I say this because as far as I can see, what is considered by many as the downside of reason – i.e. emotion, intuition, bias, – are really “fast-thinking” (stimulus response-reactive) processes which operate concurrent to “slow-thinking” (reason, logic, analysis) processes. And these influence each other (i.e. bias confirmation etc)…. but that also means the “fast-thinking processes” (our intuition) can be trained just like our reason. As slow-thinking clarifies and de-contextualizes common operations; fast thinking processes update in response. As you see the detriment of (anything really) – but, say emotional or moral reasoning – your preference for operational reasoning increases. And as one pursues operational reasoning, the fast-thinking process adapts – and we “feel” (disgust, tensions, suspicion whatever) when confronted with moral or emotional reasoning. Our biases and intuitions have “updated” – and the reverse is also true: our new biases and intuitions assist our ongoing reason. Since I’ve begun “training my mind” (really looking at, and attempting to, understand topics like philosophy etc) – I can no longer (no exaggeration) tolerate American TV and 99% of popular music. Specifically – as the time-horizon of my valuations increased, the foundation of those valuations changed, as those valuations changed, my tastes changed. -Bill Joslin

  • THE US HAS VERY FEW LISTED FIRMS. WHY? Contrary to the author’s argument, what’s

    THE US HAS VERY FEW LISTED FIRMS. WHY?

    Contrary to the author’s argument, what’s happened is that high quality investment firms have ‘stolen’ the market from pump and dump take-em-public firms. And that was exactly what they set out to do.

    What I really like about this article is the emphasis on (a) how the stock market and the tax system evolved for capital intensive companies, and (b) we live in a world of research and development companies.

    —“The US now has “abnormally few listed firms,” according to a new working paper (registration required) from the National Bureau of Economics. (The paper hasn’t been peer-reviewed.) In 1997, more than 7,500 American firms were listed publicly in the US. Nearly two decades later, in 2016, the number had dropped more than half, slipping to 3,618 firms.

    The crux of the issue is that US startups are increasingly shunning stock market boards. That could have worrying implications for America’s long-term economic prospects.

    In fact, going public can hurt them.

    The problem is, two features of public listings—disclosure and accounting standards—make things tough on companies with more intangible assets.

    US securities law requires companies to disclose their activities in detail. But startups are wary of sharing information that might benefit their competitors

    A similar problem stems from US accounting standards for public listing. Known as Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, or GAAP, these typically treat spending on tangible things like new equipment as assets, which doesn’t affect the firm’s profitability. However, GAAP regards intangible assets—research staff, employee training, and brand-building, for instance—as costs that eat into the firm’s profitability. So spending that could yield wildly profitable new products looks wasteful on paper. That makes it much harder for public investors to assess a firm’s value.

    Luckily for small companies with promising ideas, there’s plenty of private money sloshing around in the form of venture capital and private equity. And it’s often easier and less risky to convince a VC fund’s in-house experts of the value of your idea than to persuade many hundreds of thousands of prospective shareholders and the financial media.”—

    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-01 20:28:00 UTC

  • The Us Has Very Few Listed Firms. Why?

    Contrary to the author’s argument, what’s happened is that high quality investment firms have ‘stolen’ the market from pump and dump take-em-public firms. And that was exactly what they set out to do. What I really like about this article is the emphasis on (a) how the stock market and the tax system evolved for capital intensive companies, and (b) we live in a world of research and development companies. —“The US now has “abnormally few listed firms,” according to a new working paper (registration required) from the National Bureau of Economics. (The paper hasn’t been peer-reviewed.) In 1997, more than 7,500 American firms were listed publicly in the US. Nearly two decades later, in 2016, the number had dropped more than half, slipping to 3,618 firms. The crux of the issue is that US startups are increasingly shunning stock market boards. That could have worrying implications for America’s long-term economic prospects. In fact, going public can hurt them. The problem is, two features of public listings—disclosure and accounting standards—make things tough on companies with more intangible assets. US securities law requires companies to disclose their activities in detail. But startups are wary of sharing information that might benefit their competitors A similar problem stems from US accounting standards for public listing. Known as Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, or GAAP, these typically treat spending on tangible things like new equipment as assets, which doesn’t affect the firm’s profitability. However, GAAP regards intangible assets—research staff, employee training, and brand-building, for instance—as costs that eat into the firm’s profitability. So spending that could yield wildly profitable new products looks wasteful on paper. That makes it much harder for public investors to assess a firm’s value. Luckily for small companies with promising ideas, there’s plenty of private money sloshing around in the form of venture capital and private equity. And it’s often easier and less risky to convince a VC fund’s in-house experts of the value of your idea than to persuade many hundreds of thousands of prospective shareholders and the financial media.”—

  • The Us Has Very Few Listed Firms. Why?

    Contrary to the author’s argument, what’s happened is that high quality investment firms have ‘stolen’ the market from pump and dump take-em-public firms. And that was exactly what they set out to do. What I really like about this article is the emphasis on (a) how the stock market and the tax system evolved for capital intensive companies, and (b) we live in a world of research and development companies. —“The US now has “abnormally few listed firms,” according to a new working paper (registration required) from the National Bureau of Economics. (The paper hasn’t been peer-reviewed.) In 1997, more than 7,500 American firms were listed publicly in the US. Nearly two decades later, in 2016, the number had dropped more than half, slipping to 3,618 firms. The crux of the issue is that US startups are increasingly shunning stock market boards. That could have worrying implications for America’s long-term economic prospects. In fact, going public can hurt them. The problem is, two features of public listings—disclosure and accounting standards—make things tough on companies with more intangible assets. US securities law requires companies to disclose their activities in detail. But startups are wary of sharing information that might benefit their competitors A similar problem stems from US accounting standards for public listing. Known as Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, or GAAP, these typically treat spending on tangible things like new equipment as assets, which doesn’t affect the firm’s profitability. However, GAAP regards intangible assets—research staff, employee training, and brand-building, for instance—as costs that eat into the firm’s profitability. So spending that could yield wildly profitable new products looks wasteful on paper. That makes it much harder for public investors to assess a firm’s value. Luckily for small companies with promising ideas, there’s plenty of private money sloshing around in the form of venture capital and private equity. And it’s often easier and less risky to convince a VC fund’s in-house experts of the value of your idea than to persuade many hundreds of thousands of prospective shareholders and the financial media.”—

  • Aesthetics is a Science of Beauty. Moral Fictionalism Is Just Secular Religion f

    Aesthetics is a Science of Beauty. Moral Fictionalism Is Just Secular Religion for the Weak.

    By Bill Joslin

    –“the ‘ m’uh aesthetic thus your philo sucks’ is a variation of the Nirvana Fallacy. we’ve hammered out the first main branches of philos (metaphysics, epistemology, rhetoric and three of the four subbranches (politics, ethics, law).

    IMO the privileging of aesthetics is an age thing – a young man’s complaint. After a few years of running a crew, business, or family (engaging with real consequences which extend beyond the personal domain) rectifies such notions… the flavour of the wine remains secondary to its ability to sustain the body”—

    Brilliant.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-01 13:41:00 UTC

  • Aesthetics is a Science of Beauty. Moral Fictionalism Is Just Secular Religion f

    Aesthetics is a Science of Beauty. Moral Fictionalism Is Just Secular Religion for the Weak. By Bill Joslin –“the ‘ m’uh aesthetic thus your philo sucks’ is a variation of the Nirvana Fallacy. we’ve hammered out the first main branches of philos (metaphysics, epistemology, rhetoric and three of the four subbranches (politics, ethics, law). IMO the privileging of aesthetics is an age thing – a young man’s complaint. After a few years of running a crew, business, or family (engaging with real consequences which extend beyond the personal domain) rectifies such notions… the flavour of the wine remains secondary to its ability to sustain the body”— Brilliant.

  • Aesthetics is a Science of Beauty. Moral Fictionalism Is Just Secular Religion f

    Aesthetics is a Science of Beauty. Moral Fictionalism Is Just Secular Religion for the Weak. By Bill Joslin –“the ‘ m’uh aesthetic thus your philo sucks’ is a variation of the Nirvana Fallacy. we’ve hammered out the first main branches of philos (metaphysics, epistemology, rhetoric and three of the four subbranches (politics, ethics, law). IMO the privileging of aesthetics is an age thing – a young man’s complaint. After a few years of running a crew, business, or family (engaging with real consequences which extend beyond the personal domain) rectifies such notions… the flavour of the wine remains secondary to its ability to sustain the body”— Brilliant.

  • by James Santagata Google was / is a one-trick pony, search — but it is a god-d

    by James Santagata

    Google was / is a one-trick pony, search — but it is a god-damn good fucking pony at that!!

    It was basically developed by having Michael Moritz trick his earlier investment, Yahoo! to outsource a $100M USD deal to let Google do the search.

    The NSA / CIA / Qtel, kicked in the start up money and then as Yahoo abandoned search and tried to be a Portal and then a Vortal, Google ripped off the GoTo.com http://GoTo.com / Overture patent (key word buys / auction related to click throughs), bought DoubleClick and rebuilt it, and stumble onto Applied Semantics key acquisiton.

    Everything since all acquired. Overture patent stolen, Double click, Applied Semantics, Keyhole (Google Earth), Android, Youtube, etc. all the internal projects – DOA. Orkut for social networks, Google video, Google check out, etc. etc. oh, Google Wave.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-31 10:16:00 UTC