Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Yeah, I’m about 1/3 of the way through and once again, I’m reminded that a lot of people who appear smart and successful really just have confidence.
Like who?
I'm not the PP, but I was struck by that too. The author talks about Harvard grad Joel Kaplan constantly asking his team very basic questions about the countries they were working in (like where they were located). But now he's like number 2 at Meta/Facebook--it's not because he was the smartest or most hardworking in the room...
That guy won the Sears Prize at Harvard Law after doing a stint in the Marines.
In fact, I think he won it both years. So, the person with the best GPA at Harvard Law for 2 years isn’t smart or hardworking.
Have you read "1L"? The place is notorious for cheaters.
The guy must have cheated at Harvard undergrad, on the LSATs and on every test for 4 semesters all to help Scott Turrow sell books 18 years before.
Anonymous wrote:Amazon is selling hardcover for $23 and Kindle is $16.00, audio is free for new membership. Obviously, billionaires have no loyalty when it comes to making money for themselves.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Yeah, I’m about 1/3 of the way through and once again, I’m reminded that a lot of people who appear smart and successful really just have confidence.
Like who?
I'm not the PP, but I was struck by that too. The author talks about Harvard grad Joel Kaplan constantly asking his team very basic questions about the countries they were working in (like where they were located). But now he's like number 2 at Meta/Facebook--it's not because he was the smartest or most hardworking in the room...
That guy won the Sears Prize at Harvard Law after doing a stint in the Marines.
In fact, I think he won it both years. So, the person with the best GPA at Harvard Law for 2 years isn’t smart or hardworking.
Have you read "1L"? The place is notorious for cheaters.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Yeah, I’m about 1/3 of the way through and once again, I’m reminded that a lot of people who appear smart and successful really just have confidence.
Like who?
I'm not the PP, but I was struck by that too. The author talks about Harvard grad Joel Kaplan constantly asking his team very basic questions about the countries they were working in (like where they were located). But now he's like number 2 at Meta/Facebook--it's not because he was the smartest or most hardworking in the room...
That guy won the Sears Prize at Harvard Law after doing a stint in the Marines.
In fact, I think he won it both years. So, the person with the best GPA at Harvard Law for 2 years isn’t smart or hardworking.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I finished this book and really enjoyed it. It made me double down on never joining Facebook again, even to keep up with family who are on it.
I am not a Facebook person and never have been but I am also aware of tons of misses in this book. I would not base a decision on Facebook usage on this.
Interesting. I would, so I am curious if you see any connection between the protest events in Myanmar, facebook and if/how Facebook contributes to autocracy and the polarization of politics. I think there is a pretty direct connection, and felt the book laid those out well in the final chapters. Maybe I am missing something, so I would love to know your perspective on what was wrong about the authors thoughts.
FB/Meta do a lot wrong but this book isn’t factual. Two wrongs don’t make a right perhaps.
Dumb "public affairs" firm bot doing PR clean-up.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I finished this book and really enjoyed it. It made me double down on never joining Facebook again, even to keep up with family who are on it.
I am not a Facebook person and never have been but I am also aware of tons of misses in this book. I would not base a decision on Facebook usage on this.
Interesting. I would, so I am curious if you see any connection between the protest events in Myanmar, facebook and if/how Facebook contributes to autocracy and the polarization of politics. I think there is a pretty direct connection, and felt the book laid those out well in the final chapters. Maybe I am missing something, so I would love to know your perspective on what was wrong about the authors thoughts.
FB/Meta do a lot wrong but this book isn’t factual. Two wrongs don’t make a right perhaps.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I finished this book and really enjoyed it. It made me double down on never joining Facebook again, even to keep up with family who are on it.
I am not a Facebook person and never have been but I am also aware of tons of misses in this book. I would not base a decision on Facebook usage on this.
Interesting. I would, so I am curious if you see any connection between the protest events in Myanmar, facebook and if/how Facebook contributes to autocracy and the polarization of politics. I think there is a pretty direct connection, and felt the book laid those out well in the final chapters. Maybe I am missing something, so I would love to know your perspective on what was wrong about the authors thoughts.
FB/Meta do a lot wrong but this book isn’t factual. Two wrongs don’t make a right perhaps.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I finished this book and really enjoyed it. It made me double down on never joining Facebook again, even to keep up with family who are on it.
I am not a Facebook person and never have been but I am also aware of tons of misses in this book. I would not base a decision on Facebook usage on this.
Interesting. I would, so I am curious if you see any connection between the protest events in Myanmar, facebook and if/how Facebook contributes to autocracy and the polarization of politics. I think there is a pretty direct connection, and felt the book laid those out well in the final chapters. Maybe I am missing something, so I would love to know your perspective on what was wrong about the authors thoughts.
FB/Meta do a lot wrong but this book isn’t factual. Two wrongs don’t make a right perhaps.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I finished this book and really enjoyed it. It made me double down on never joining Facebook again, even to keep up with family who are on it.
I am not a Facebook person and never have been but I am also aware of tons of misses in this book. I would not base a decision on Facebook usage on this.
Interesting. I would, so I am curious if you see any connection between the protest events in Myanmar, facebook and if/how Facebook contributes to autocracy and the polarization of politics. I think there is a pretty direct connection, and felt the book laid those out well in the final chapters. Maybe I am missing something, so I would love to know your perspective on what was wrong about the authors thoughts.
FB/Meta do a lot wrong but this book isn’t factual. Two wrongs don’t make a right perhaps.
Ok- Macmillan is standing behind it and Meta is attacking the author for going against their NDA, not attacking the veracity of the book. That said, I am open to hearing about these issues, but if you can’t point to specifics, then just saying it “isn’t factual” makes your case pretty weak.
Because this is the place to do it? Not so much.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I finished this book and really enjoyed it. It made me double down on never joining Facebook again, even to keep up with family who are on it.
I am not a Facebook person and never have been but I am also aware of tons of misses in this book. I would not base a decision on Facebook usage on this.
Interesting. I would, so I am curious if you see any connection between the protest events in Myanmar, facebook and if/how Facebook contributes to autocracy and the polarization of politics. I think there is a pretty direct connection, and felt the book laid those out well in the final chapters. Maybe I am missing something, so I would love to know your perspective on what was wrong about the authors thoughts.
FB/Meta do a lot wrong but this book isn’t factual. Two wrongs don’t make a right perhaps.
Ok- Macmillan is standing behind it and Meta is attacking the author for going against their NDA, not attacking the veracity of the book. That said, I am open to hearing about these issues, but if you can’t point to specifics, then just saying it “isn’t factual” makes your case pretty weak.