> the CEO's three favorite things are talking about how much he likes to drink, comparing himself to a gangster rapper, and a juvenile lack of self-awareness
Based on his LinkedIn profile, he can't be older than 30 and has never held a real job. Why exactly is someone like this running a company that has raised $77M instead of working as a junior engineer?
Shhtttt don't ask, the YC president never held a real job but that doesn't stop him from talking like he knows everything from astrophysics to socioeconomic stuff either.
There's nothing fundamentally wrong with being young or not having ever held a real job. There are certainly great founders who have done an admirable job despite their youth and lack of work experience (Zuckerberg comes to mind), but they are few and far between. It's just that these sorts of complaints about juvenile behavior are entirely understandable when you consider the founder's profile.
And to be fair to sama, I haven't seen any comments from YC alumni about how he compares himself to a gangster rapper. However, the trend of VCs pontificating on Twitter about topics that they don't have a good grasp on is somewhat irritating. The only person who has truly demonstrated the ability to "go deep" on (multiple) extremely complicated subjects, and successfully put his time/money where his mouth is, is Elon Musk. And even he showed a typical lack of self-awareness in his younger days[0].
I thought these were great examples. He demonstrated that he was able to solve reasonably challenging, atypical problems with Magic, and that the service brought a lot of value to the table by being thoughtful (knowing to provide KBB reference values without having to be asked, being able to negotiate prices down on behalf of the buyer, having paperwork sent over by a driver etc). It's true that a lot of back and forth was involved, but they facilitated a process which would have taken days of effort on behalf of the buyer (buying the bike) via a few text messages. I personally was both highly amused and very impressed.
Does anyone else only see "Some rights reserved" Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0) as the license set? They said it would be released in the public domain, shouldn't that be noted on their download page?
Are the recordings in the public domain? Your website says "Some rights reserved" Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0)
Shouldn't it say CC0 per the Kickstarter which says "We are creating a new digital score and studio recording of J.S. Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier (Book 1), and we're placing them in the public domain for everyone to download, own, share, and use, without any limitations."
I'm only guessing, because I don't have a Bandcamp account, but usually media content hostings have a limited choice of licenses, so people pick whichever license is closest and mention the real one in description. I know this is true for e.g. YouTube which simply doesn't have the CC zero option.
What are you referring to, that they will take things down only when a complaint is filed? That doesn't really speak to the quality of the archive that it's there in the first place.
It's pretty hard to miss. On the link you provided, it's a great big section right below the top one which explains which John Mayer recordings are not allowed on archive.org and which are.
More broadly, archive.org does operate in a legally gray area. But by trying to be a comprehensive archive but providing straightforward mechanisms for rights holders to opt out (including retroactively)--and by being a non-profit that doesn't run advertising--they seem to strike a reasonable balance for most people.
