Edit:
The poll stopped me in my tracks but it’s actually even worse.
It should not take this long to get to imdb
Edit2: didn’t even realize it thinks I’ll “love it” based on things I look up. I don’t think I’d like it.
Edit³: IMDb was the example I used without thinking. I’m aware that there’s a link to it in the top card. It’s the other web results that I don’t already know about that I’d like to see. I now know there’s a hidden “web” tab. There’s also https://www.google.com/search?udm=14&q=example` but it’s still mildly infuriating that you have to know about these things to get the basic results we expected for years.
I am not a fan of some of his ideas either, especially the ones tending towards libertarianism. Some other ideas instead are quite decent, like how he thinks companies should give back to the community. He also built a tech company without VC funding and with a good share of ownership for workers (which I think is nice), without any marketing (which I despise as industry) and generally without the predatory nature that 98% of tech companies have nowadays.
I am sure you are referring to the Brave debacle of months back, and FWIW, I agree with his position on that particular issue. Anyway, considering that I have no ideas about the positions for the CEOs/founders of the alternatives, I think it’s still a very worthy compromise to have a good product (incl. nonfunctional qualities like privacy, ecological impact etc.).
Getting 670k from a few private investors aint vc?
I havent heard about the brave debacle but some other comments ive seen make me really not trust this ceo
No, 670k from 42 investors means less than 20k of investment per investor. 670k is already a number ridiculously small for VC funding, but 20k is basically nothing.
Also, after just a few years, 37 employees and 30k users the company became profitable, which is an insanely low period/scale for usual VC funded tech companies.