The name sounded familiar. This company is a bit spammy anyway. I got this e-mail from one of their employee in early March: FounderDating FD is an invite-only, online network for entrepreneurs to connect with Founderdating spamming. High Quality - members are carefully screened for quality readiness no recruiters, etc. Not sure if she also goes by another Founderdating spamming Gail or what. Let's give her the benefit of doubt.
Who joins a new meetup and right away sends plugs for their own project? At
Founderdating spamming, I don't think that's the norm.
I'll say they're spammy. This is the same Founderdating spamming letter that
Founderdating spamming posted to many tech-leaning meetups.
It's started some pretty long, snarky threads on the mailing lists to the point where I had to
Founderdating spamming from one. Oh, if you're worried that you missed the April 8th deadline, don't worry: This ought to be a case study on how to Founderdating spamming a not-terrible concept into a really unsavory mess.
Founderdating spamming was asked to be a "Managing Director" of my local chapter of FounderDating when it unlocked. Basically this is a volunteer representative who wants to help out the community. While I was not in need of a I a few people who did, and thought the network might be beneficial to them.
It's not surprising that you got this email; they basically sent us a few dozen stock emails and directed us to Founderdating spamming them out to other groups
Founderdating spamming the area. I was to have them, as they cut down my work, but I changed some of the wording because I would never Founderdating spamming talk
Founderdating spamming way.
My Founderdating spamming would be this was part the outreach effort of some newly recruited "managing director" who was trying to figure out
Founderdating spamming to contact user groups.
So Founderdating spamming whether or not this is "spammy" is debatable, I wouldn't be so fast as to assume it is one person assuming different personas. Yep, I've seen this exact text come through other Meetup groups many times here in the DC Founderdating spamming. This wording has been in use for months.
I Founderdating spamming sorry now I signed up to unlock my city. I've had similar issues. People in my group asked me to stop approving FounderDating posts because they felt it was spammy. Clearly something needs to change with their tone and overall marketing because it could be a great resource for some people with project ideas! Who do all those ManagingDirectors [sic] direct? Those ManagingDirectors [sic] are not employees. I'm familiar with two of them. They are folks in the startup space, likely operating in an advisory role, probably brought on lend credibility to the Founderdating spamming. Or maybe they were brought on
Founderdating spamming access to their contacts.
This is as misleading as the stunt they pulled with spamming that poor guy's LinkedIn contacts. Where there is smoke, there is fire. It's surreal that, after all the blow-up-in-your-face Founderdating spamming that media apps have had after doing underhanded things like this in recent memory, companies are still pushing under-the-radar hard sells like this.
It has to take an incredible combination of obliviousness and ethical failure to consider something like this a good Founderdating spamming. Also, this gives me a very vivid sense deja vu; I swear I read this exact article at some point Founderdating spamming year DanBC on May Sadly people don't have to be stupid
Founderdating spamming evil to think this stuff is acceptable.
Bob sees other people Founderdating spamming it, and Bob knows it's bad when those people do it, but when Bob does it it's different Founderdating spamming. There's a reason somewhere that means what other people do is Founderdating spamming spam, but what Bob is not.
When Ann looks at what Bob is doing she thinks it's pretty clearly dodgy. These kinds of cognitive biases are tricky to spot in ourselves. Carving an exception like that for oneself strikes me as immediately disingenuous. I personally can't see how that doesn't make you either stupid or
Founderdating spamming or both. I don't think "cognitive bias" doesn't make you not-a-dick. Carving exceptions for oneself I think is very common and may not be obvious to the person doing it.
My wife hates when people talk on their phone while driving, to the point of screaming Founderdating spamming at them.
Yet, if her phone rings while she's driving, she
Founderdating spamming answers it. If I point out the discrepancy, she dismisses it, as her call is "important" or "short" or she's "still watching the road".
I suspect I do the same thing, although like my wife and her phone I don't realize that I'm
Founderdating spamming others for Founderdating spamming I myself engage in. Doctors referred patients with osteoarthritis to surgeons for something called knee arthroscopy. They did this for Doctors, and surgeons, thought it Founderdating spamming doing good. They were not dicks. They were Founderdating spamming charlatans.
They were not quacks. They were not idiots. They just didn't have enough Founderdating spamming, and persuaded themselves that the evidence they had was better quality than it actually was.
The surgery isn't outlandish; it has a plausible mechanism of action; patients report good results afterwards. And the reason standard research wasn't done is because there's a bunch of stuff we do that we've been doing for a long time and are only just now getting around to Founderdating spamming studying.
So, when a placebo-controlled blinded study was done we discover that knee arthroscopy probably doesn't do anything more than placebo for osteoarthritis.
These things are really hard to guard against. Patients demanding placebo like vitamin shots or antibiotics
Founderdating spamming an old problem or technique, depending on how you look at it. I agree with you and like the example, but
Founderdating spamming wanted to provide feedback that this example is confusing in its to the current topic.
This example is excellent for cognitive bias!!! We know Founderdating spamming we should only trust double-blind controlled randomised trials. This surgery had that trial, thus it shouldn't have been trusted, yet it was. And the reasons it was Founderdating spamming are just biases.
That's normally what Founderdating spamming see happen. Sure, but self-analysis isn't optional. No, it isn't, but it Founderdating spamming much more difficult when you feel Founderdating spamming in your actions.
This is one of the areas that having "no-men" is a good idea. You don't seem clear on what "cognitive bias" means. It's a line if you it becomes hard to not appear dickish in normal situations.
It Founderdating Founderdating spamming happens because, when seeking that viral edge sometimes the cost benefit analysis Founderdating spamming out in favor of pissing off a certain percentage of your members. As far as the ethics
Founderdating spamming, I don't really expect corporations to be ethical at any level. I would like them to, I Founderdating spamming expect them to.
GhotiFish on May 8, I'm pretty sure, as it is now, corporations that have shareholders are obligated to be unethical. You're Founderdating spamming in that being unethical is the best way to get ahead in Founderdating spamming game, and it might be a good idea to make it so that's not the case.
That said, the US of A is an adversarial society. A corporation is just a group of people. It's not possible Founderdating spamming
Founderdating spamming corporation to be ethical or unethical, a corporation doesn't have a soul or a conscience. It's possible for specific people inside a corporation to behave in unethical ways.
However, the definition of maximizing shareholder value is not simply "make the stock price as high as possible in the short term.
Thankfully, ethics do not depend on the existence of a soul nor conscience. There is a thing as emergent behavior, after all.
Not if Founderdating spamming shareholders want Founderdating spamming to be ethical more than profitable. Arguably, shared ownership tends promote turning a blind Founderdating spamming to that aspect.
Not for a public C corp. They must maximize shareholder value, or a minority shareholder could sue and win.
Patagonia changed their corporate structure to a California B corp to allow this. Sounds like a caricature of the actual laws.
This reminds me "Why is there tele-marketing when everyone hates telemarketers and getting calls at 7pm when you are sitting down to dinner? Now, interestingly we then hit a tipping point where there was enough outrage US that a "Donotcall" list was created - very effectively. How long till there is a equivalent? Founderdating spamming industry is arguably not policing itself well enough.
Imagine if social services had check all email addresses given out like this against a central list to see if they were on the "no social offers no matter what".