So you're saying that you are asking consent to store the phone number and email address of a client? And you'll provide clients with the right to be forgotten, meaning that you're prepared to delete their contact information? This seems like overkill.
> So you're saying that you are asking consent to store the phone number and email address of a client?
No, I didn't say that. GDPR doesn't mean that you have to ask for consent in each and every case. If as a business you have a legitimate interest to store client data for a specific purpose you don't have to ask for explicit consent. Being able to contact clients in the future who contacted you first constitutes such a legitimate interest.
As for the right to be forgotten: Sure, why wouldn't I? If they don't want to be contacted anymore and want me to delete their contact info I'm happy to oblige.
The CEO of Mattermark spent a lot of time and energy in the early days of the company establishing a public presence as a brash, highly opinionated thought leader in the “how to run a start-up” intellectual space, which makes the failure of the company a little ironic and is almost certainly contributing to the Schadenfreud I’ve read on Twitter.
Also, it appears that the CEO lacked focus: according to her Twitter profile, she’s a VC and a very prolific angel investor. I’d be upset as an employee of the company receiving $0 for my common stock that the CEO was effectively hedging her Mattermark bet with a number of side gigs. The CEO’s job is to be singularly focused on the success of the company.
That aggressiveness gets noticed and picked up by lots of different outlets -- from tech aggregators to mainstream business publications looking for "punchy" topics. E.g. look at who appears on CNBC programs.
Unfortunately, people have made that into a marketing strategy -- I'm not sure it is something to really hold against Mattermark in particular.
Yeah, unreal. Hey @sm give me $17m and I’ll give you $1m back and we’ll gauge your positivity/negativity.
This is the stuff that gives SV a bad reputation- the sense of entitlement. That of course we deserve “others people’s money” to do with what we please and should be praised for it.
Wow, that presentation is pretty shocking. How on Earth did he get away with both the harassment and the crude commentary for so long? In retrospect, knowing how he was treating women for years and looking at a presentation like this, it seems almost as if he was taunting the general consumer tech public with his behavior.
I'm as horrified by the story as anyone, but I don't think the author can be considered an industry veteran. I just looked at her LinkedIn profile and she graduated from undergrad in 2014 and held two <=6 month jobs before joining Uber.
How does it have the same impact on outcome? You're talking about the associative property of multiplication but he's saying the luck factor can either reduce your success to 0 or multiply the outcome of your endeavor by 1000. It obviously does have an impact (note: the results of .9 * .9 * 1000 and .9 * .9 * 1 are different numbers).
They're different numbers, but it makes no difference in terms of how far along the possible scale you are.
If I score money as 0-1 and luck as 0-1000, then I have a possible overall score out of 1000.
If I score 0.3 on money and 600 on "luck" then I've scored 180 out of 1000, or 18%.
Or if both are 0-1 then I'd have scored 0.3 and 0.6, and overall scored 0.18 out of 1, which is still 18%, it's just the absolute number that has changed.
But the absolute number isn't important in a scale which doesn't have meaningful units.
I understood the absolute number to be of significance as the goal (eg. the absolute number is however many millions $ you'll make as outcome). But point taken, I don't think this was thought through :)
