That's the sort of snarky dismissal we've been trying to cut back on here. There's nothing special about predicting the failure of a venture. That's like predicting normal weather, only in a cynical voice to make it sound contrarian. You will be right 99% of the time, and your cynicism will have its return on investment, a smug chortle. But this game is of no (intellectual) interest. If you could predict a tornado or an earthquake, that would be interesting.
Yeah, I'm not trying to say I am a genius (no pun) to predict them bombing. I just thought it was funny in context to have pmarca chime in on the topic. And props to him for actually engaging with snarky a-holes on internet forums.
(And my linked comment did contain a juxtaposition about a16z's purported investment strategy and their Genius investment, so I don't think the retroactive chiding is entirely called for.)
I don't mean to be a pill, yes it's fun to read pmarca's reply, and I appreciate your being a good sport. But I still think your comment deserved its chiding.
When a thing happens 99% of the time, its happening again doesn't mean there was any truth, or even any information, in your reasoning. You might just as easily have linked it to A16Z's cafeteria as their consumer strategy. Whether or not they have a cafeteria.
(I'm not assuming this startup has failed, of course; the point about snarky dismissals holds either way.)
