Chris Sacca's 'What is left?'

Latest Comments

Every year I end up keeping my elite flying status is a reminder of how much time I am spending not hiking/biking/fishing in the mountains. Buying carbon offsets is a good idea, and I'd love to cut back on travel, but sometimes there is no substitute for a face to face meeting.

P.S. Sorry we did not get a chance to meetup while you were here in Utah.

Reply | Original | Permalink | Share | Tweet

But you forgot to mention the most important part! Which airlines did you get top status on? :D

(I'm losing 1K on United for next year because I traveled only 78,000 miles, not 100,000 this year :\)

Reply | Original | Permalink | Share | Tweet

Nice work, Chris. If you like endurance riding, give randonneuring a try.

Reply | Original | Permalink | Share | Tweet

congrats chris....huge accomplishment. it's all about convincing yourself that you can do it :)

Reply | Original | Permalink | Share | Tweet

Holy shit! Congrats, Chris -- this is amazing.

Reply | Original | Permalink | Share | Tweet

Congrats Chris. Nobody suffers quite like a distance runner who has decided to do something his body doesn't want to.

Reply | Original | Permalink | Share | Tweet

Fantastic race. Fantastic achievement. Fantastic achievement. Congrats my friend!

Reply | Original | Permalink | Share | Tweet

This is a little late, but here's my best cold remedy: do a water-only fast. When animals are ill, they generally fast. This allows the body to focus on repair and maintenance rather than digestion.

Reply | Original | Permalink | Share | Tweet

Congratulations Chris!

Met you at a couple of bdowney's parties while you were still at GOOG (that ought to narrow it down quite a bit). Hadn't seen your blog in a bit, pleasant surprise to see you've joined the ironman club (I'm a bit of a pied piper for this sort of foolishness). At last, a convincing answer to, "What is Twitter really useful for?" :)

Congratulations again

Reply | Original | Permalink | Share | Tweet

the best one was mine, relax you'll be fine ..

but you would not have had this blog post, so, another victory for anxiety ..

have a ball

Reply | Original | Permalink | Share | Tweet

Good luck :)

Reply | Original | Permalink | Share | Tweet

I'll attempt to feed a constant variety of well timed, inspiring movie lines tomorrow---good luck.

Reply | Original | Permalink | Share | Tweet

congrats! this is a way cool concept and co!

Reply | Original | Permalink | Share | Tweet

awesome, congrats to Ryan & team, and also to you & PaulG, mr. Sacca!

nice job :)

ps - so does this mean SlideShare is next? cough, COUGH.

Reply | Original | Permalink | Share | Tweet

It's all true. I can say at least that Simon is one of the smartest people I've ever met, and not just in technical skills too.

Reply | Original | Permalink | Share | Tweet

Thanks mate! We honestly could not have done it without you.

R

Reply | Original | Permalink | Share | Tweet

science is not the means for discovering the truth/untruth of this, it is too primitive.

we are the instruments to discover this.

every human being is incredibly different from his neighbor as to sensitivity.

chemicals, polyester shirts, sick buildings, auto exhaust, everybody has different sensitivity.

my cellphone signal, just checking into the tower, makes my usb speakers buzz.

there is clearly something physical happening, whether "science" can figure it out or not.

take radiation, science says we cannot feel it, but just ask any experienced industrial radiographer if he can feel if the pill is out, and he will say yes.

science is so often a joke, dependent on funding, that they really should not be given much credibility.

yes, we all will continue to use these tools, until something better comes along. try to be conscious about it

enjoy, gregory lent

Reply | Original | Permalink | Share | Tweet

kinda cool job post ;)

Reply | Original | Permalink | Share | Tweet

YES>YES>YES - I rarely read and re-read blogmatter but Arnold has this one nailed. Thanks for opening my eyes a wee bit wider. We are all pawns in the media machine. My only additions is that we need a neutral rating agency (such as with bonds, ala JD Power, etc.) focused on those with integrity and value while weeding out those who provide valuable insight from those who amplify and echo controversial garbage created for the sake of driving traffic.

Reply | Original | Permalink | Share | Tweet

Right on.

The media tends to assume that balance requires giving equal time to both sides of any issue, no matter how preposterous one side may be. Their thought processes are too simplistic to comprehend the notion of probability. Basically, if you can't conclusively prove that something is false, we must give it a 50% chance of being true...

Reply | Original | Permalink | Share | Tweet

Not a bad idea. I had a similar epiphany after I saw the Spore people handing out 3d printer versions of the monsters people had created as marketing schwag -- honestly, I thought they should get into the 3d toy generation business and only be a computer game incidentally. ;)

Reply | Original | Permalink | Share | Tweet

Wouldn't it be great if users could post wish lists on their profiles and then their friends could virtually gift their requests (with the potential to win a tangible prize as well)?

It smells like a great opportunity for some targeted advertising... thoughts?

Reply | Original | Permalink | Share | Tweet

Chris, you're just a touch off. If you're interested in seeing who makes this happen shoot me a message.

Reply | Original | Permalink | Share | Tweet

Headline: Whatchoo talkin'bout Willis?
"Man killed by watching too many re-run episodes of a Different Strokes television show while trying to set world record. Over the course of 4 weeks when he also did not sleep or eat, the victim watched the same episode several thousand times on his TiVO before expiring."

There are always 2 sides to every story, and depending on how strong your microscope is, or where you decide to look, they can both be wrong. When it comes to risks (which may or may not be risks) such as cell phones, I am pro-choice. Here are a few examples of cell phone and land line related risks:

1) If we choose the convenience of a cell phone over using landline and payphones, we may end up with cancer and die from something that is now nothing but could be something in the future = Maybe I should just get a pager instead, or will that produce cancer of the gluteous maximus at some point in the future?

2) If we choose the inconvenience of a cell phone we may possibly contract a deadly disease from a payphone user and die from that something in the future = I don't have to pick someone else's gum off of my cell phone.

3) If we choose the convenience of a cell phone over landlines, we could end up dying from a phone that ignites petrol fumes while we are tying our shoe during a cell phone conversation filling up the car = Do I really need to return these calls today or can it wait?

4) If we choose to stick with land lines we may be late to more meetings therefore causing us to rush and make hasty decisions more often and therefore we may die in an accident caused by something in the future = It sure would be nice to be on time and not in a rush.

The results of my exhaustive study are the following: Do more, be on time, and maybe contract cancer -OR- Get hit by a bus tommorow. Ok, so I'm for cellphones, but my decision is based on my own assessment and not an article, tv show or your blog.

This debate follows an FCC study and their delivery of a clear statement of what is and what is not permissable/dangerous pertaining to RF emissions. The FCC is our government. Do you trust our government? Exactly, trust the FCC and (maybe) die or don't trust them and (maybe) die anyway. Debate here is fruitless.

Cell phones just happen to be on the revolving health risk media circuit. It is awfully hard to fill the papers/airwaves with interesting news day after day. Big media rationale is that if you are concerned about the hype and it is successful in producing your response, then you likely have a cellphone and are a consumer within a certain age bracket and have some discretionary income and interests which are appealing to the media advertisers.

The debate over 500 milliwatts from cell phones that may cause brain cancer is far more appealing from a media sales standpoint as compared to let's say breast cancer and the 1200 watt microwave ovens (@ a 2.5 gigahertz frequency - specifically engineered 30 years ago to resonate water molecules = Cook)in every single household in America.

That would be much easier to hype, but lacks some key male audience appeal as a front page story/blurb and is much profitable as it primarily hits the female population who may or may not have cell phones and be consumer targets. Therefore, it may only find use in women's magazines and talk shows.

Gore reference? Conspiracy, consmiracy. Anyone who has inhaled what comes out of a muffler and has an ounce of common sense could put the pieces together and did. In that specific campaign, the sensational media and overplaying the urgency is likely what has started the ball rolling in the right direction for our environment. If not extreme and sensational media, what else would so effectively move our culture to action in an attempt to avoid peril, and so effectively with that sustaining guilt and urgency to boot.

As you see, we can use the same despicable media tools and methods for both good and evil. Facts are just too boring, people don't like to talk about them, and they don't drive the bottom line when you are in the advertising business.

Would your blog efforts be better spent to actually change policies, create economic incentives and further the next big stimulus plan we are staring at called the green energy eco-bubble?

Instead of you getting worked up over integrity that you thought ad reliant big media actually had all of this time, you should not have been phased and you should trust only personal experience, gut instinct, and firsthand reference from reliable sources.

I think Darwin was on to something. This is all part of a beautiful test that will advance civilization because everyone whose intelligence quotient had them reading or watching this debate to the end of the article/show hopefully will make a personal decision about the risks associated with something that clearly, beyond a shadow of a doubt, has a remote chance of potentially happening at some point in the future.

So, those influenced by the media to the point of actually dumping their cell phones will all get hit by buses and their genes will be removed from the pool while those who keep their phones will live long enough to procreate before dying of TCPC "the cell phone cancer".

My point: We are all responsible for our own diligence, decisions and risks. If you engage this debate, you are as dumb as the controversy/advertising/ratings driven producer. At least he has an agenda and has suceeded in meeting his business objective by playing you and getting you to post, propagate and drive even more people to enhance the ad revenue potential of CNN and NYT.

Good thing not too many read your blog or this really would have sent the wrong positive re-enforcement for more drivel media and the NYT might start to look like the National Inquirer.

Oops, maybe it's too late. My point is that when it's information that really matters and can be life changing, why would anyone we would ever want to contribute genetically, ever bother to take these sources seriously.

What I have learned today:

1)All information is flawed if you stare at it long enough
2)Life is all about calculated risks for those with common sense
3)Common sense is not at all common
4)People are generally stupid and bored
5)Advertisers pay media outlets to garner the attention of the masses.
6)There's masses of stupid and bored people willing to proliferate information
7)The most sensational information get into wider distribution via blogs.
8)These people distribute the links to the source material in an effort to state their pro/con position
9)These links cause other stupid and board people to flock the pro or con side of sensational information.
10)This scales and repeats, repeats, repeats, repeats itself producing sensational advertising revenue driving stock prices sky high thereby fueling investor interest and positive re-inforcement to keep finding the best and most controversial carrots to dangle in front of the stupid masses to be herded.

The key is having just the right balance of non-controversial content to keep people thinking that they are not a cog.

I always wondered why they call it the "Ad Game".

DNE

Reply | Original | Permalink | Share | Tweet

Wait. I don't get it. What are you saying about Santa Claus? What are you saying!?!

Reply | Original | Permalink | Share | Tweet