5 ms·

But the statement is not applicable to PayPal nor many of Thiel's "Web 2.0" investments. Yet it is used in the column as if it were. NB Section III. Do you u

But the statement is not applicable to PayPal nor many of Thiel's "Web 2.0" investments. Yet it is used in the column as if it were. NB Section III. Do you understand?

washedup 14y ago
Yea I get that. He shouldn't use that statement to defend what he has done, and I agree with that. It got me thinking about many of the Web 2.0 funding and if is has been used for developments that improve society as a whole. Many times yes, but not always. Either way, that simple statement holds a lot of weight and is very interesting, regardless of how he uses it to defend his own ventures. You just have to ignore that part and think about the idea he is presenting. I guess I would categorize his defense of his own funding as "fluff", because it adds nothing to his arguments, but only makes himself seem a little selfish.
- truethurts 14y ago
  It is a subtle thing. He is making some valid arguments. I mean who could argue that leverage/debt/credit is being abused? That is not exactly a new problem. It has been simmering for quite some time. And who in a modern economy could argue that scientific progress should not always be paramount? These are like noble truths. But then he is inserting some positive references about Google, the web and Silicon Valley. Strangely, (positive) references to what I would consider "real science" are missing. This is only how I see it. You may disagree. Who knows, maybe "Web 2.0" will propel the economy upwards, back to year 2000 levels. And capital investment will flow into "real science" again. The number of biotech startups will rise. Jobs in science will become plentiful. New drug candidates will fill development pipelines. And it will have all started with some "Web 2.0 fluff". Thanks in no small part to Silicon Valley venture capitalists like Theil.

5 ms·

But the statement is not applicable to PayPal nor many of Thiel's "Web 2.0" investments. Yet it is used in the column as if it were. NB Section III. Do you u

by truethurts 14y ago

But the statement is not applicable to PayPal nor many of Thiel's "Web 2.0" investments. Yet it is used in the column as if it were. NB Section III. Do you understand?

washedup 14y ago
Yea I get that. He shouldn't use that statement to defend what he has done, and I agree with that. It got me thinking about many of the Web 2.0 funding and if is has been used for developments that improve society as a whole. Many times yes, but not always. Either way, that simple statement holds a lot of weight and is very interesting, regardless of how he uses it to defend his own ventures. You just have to ignore that part and think about the idea he is presenting. I guess I would categorize his defense of his own funding as "fluff", because it adds nothing to his arguments, but only makes himself seem a little selfish.
- truethurts 14y ago
  It is a subtle thing. He is making some valid arguments. I mean who could argue that leverage/debt/credit is being abused? That is not exactly a new problem. It has been simmering for quite some time. And who in a modern economy could argue that scientific progress should not always be paramount? These are like noble truths. But then he is inserting some positive references about Google, the web and Silicon Valley. Strangely, (positive) references to what I would consider "real science" are missing. This is only how I see it. You may disagree. Who knows, maybe "Web 2.0" will propel the economy upwards, back to year 2000 levels. And capital investment will flow into "real science" again. The number of biotech startups will rise. Jobs in science will become plentiful. New drug candidates will fill development pipelines. And it will have all started with some "Web 2.0 fluff". Thanks in no small part to Silicon Valley venture capitalists like Theil.