For the life of me I cannot figure out what LinkedIn is good for or why it even exists. It's pretty much a ghost town with zero interaction or activity. Google+ is a vibrant, bustling, happenin' place by comparison. I find interesting things there all the time, whereas I have never found anything even slightly engaging at LinkedIn. All it seems to have are profile pages that seem like they are frozen in carbonite (my own included). That and incessant pestering to connect with "people I might know," who are never anyone who I know or would likely ever know and offers to get "more access" by upgrading my membership for a fee via a subscription. So in order to have the opportunity to connect with more people and have a network in LinkedIn (maybe) I have to buy my way in. Which would be BS even if I had the money to do so. LinkedIn is basically a scam.
I think that what Khanna is saying with the "failure is OK" statement is that the federal government should be more open to and willing to experiment, to be more nimble and try new and different things even if it isn't sure that they will work. It's an attractive notion and is a model that seems to work well in a fast-moving field like tech, but if my interpretation of what he is saying is correct (big if), then advocating it on a national governmental level is either disingenuous or else indicative of a profound level of ignorance regarding how government, especially at the federal level, works in a democracy. Government policies and services are not products that compete in a marketplace, and citizens don't relate to their government as customers or consumers. Autocratic governments can be nimble and enact swift changes (which is why citizens in some countries have initially advocated and supported them), but not democracies.
You may be the only person I have heard used their own money. Both during the bubble years and the New Technology Boom (or whatever it's called).
<i>Khanna launches into a riff about LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman and the power of technology to radically improve business and society.</i>
LinkedIn is good if you&#039;re tired of the 9 other easier and better ways of social networking.
First we have the &#039;business people can run government better&#039; (although government is nothing at all like a business) and now someone who shakes down vulture capitalists for startup money on the basis of hipster bulltshit can <strike>run</strike> disrupt government better? At least he&#039;ll do well at fundraising.
Hoveround riders wearing teabags on their fucking hats.
And &quot;a firm whack with the clue bat&quot;.
Thing is, Rohypnol here isn&#039;t even a techie. He&#039;s a fucking Wilson Sonsini fanboi.
For the life of me I cannot figure out what LinkedIn is good for or why it even exists. It&#039;s pretty much a ghost town with zero interaction or activity. Google+ is a vibrant, bustling, happenin&#039; place by comparison. I find interesting things there all the time, whereas I have never found anything even slightly engaging at LinkedIn. All it seems to have are profile pages that seem like they are frozen in carbonite (my own included). That and incessant pestering to connect with &quot;people I might know,&quot; who are never anyone who I know or would likely ever know and offers to get &quot;more access&quot; by upgrading my membership for a fee via a subscription. So in order to have the opportunity to connect with more people and have a network in LinkedIn (maybe) I have to buy my way in. Which would be BS even if I had the money to do so. LinkedIn is basically a scam.
I think that what Khanna is saying with the &quot;failure is OK&quot; statement is that the federal government should be more open to and willing to experiment, to be more nimble and try new and different things even if it isn&#039;t sure that they will work. It&#039;s an attractive notion and is a model that seems to work well in a fast-moving field like tech, but if my interpretation of what he is saying is correct (big if), then advocating it on a national governmental level is either disingenuous or else indicative of a profound level of ignorance regarding how government, especially at the federal level, works in a democracy. Government policies and services are not products that compete in a marketplace, and citizens don&#039;t relate to their government as customers or consumers. Autocratic governments can be nimble and enact swift changes (which is why citizens in some countries have initially advocated and supported them), but not democracies.
You may be the only person I have heard used their own money. Both during the bubble years and the New Technology Boom (or whatever it&#039;s called).
You have integrity.
at best
Well, brodude is definitely qualified. Silicon Valley startups take risks with OTHER PEOPLES MONEY.
<i>Khanna launches into a riff about LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman and the power of technology to radically improve business and society.</i>
LinkedIn is good if you&#039;re tired of the 9 other easier and better ways of social networking.
LinkedIn is basically good at flooding your inbox with useless crap like countless invites and endorsements and not much else
in Silicon valley, even if you fail there will always be more venture capitalists to throw more money at your next screwball idea
Annoying rich Silcon valley techbro dude
you&#039;re being redundant...
I guess you didn&#039;t get the memo, BRO - government should be run like a business!
First we have the &#039;business people can run government better&#039; (although government is nothing at all like a business) and now someone who shakes down vulture capitalists for startup money on the basis of hipster bulltshit can <strike>run</strike> disrupt government better? At least he&#039;ll do well at fundraising.
What&#039;s his opinion of Solyndra?