Even if you want to sustain for your family now, a start up could possibly make it better for them in the future. That's a big problem with the Maslow's hierarchy, as it doesn't account for planning into the future.
Do you mean you think that sustaining your family is mutually exclusive from doing a startup?
If so, then I don't think so. I am running a bootstrapped startup (https://www.wisecashhq.com) and sustaining my family right now (and I expect, 99.9% sure, that the startup will make a better future for them, as well).
This just requires picking a model where you can sustain your startup and your family, there's no need to dichotimize between both here.
I didn't understand what you mean with "it doesn't account for planning into the future"? I do believe that securing resources, health and property does account for planning into the future, actually.
I like Instagram because it feels less serious then Facebook. When I upload something to Facebook, it feels like it has to be something good. On Instagram I can just post whatever picture I want, doesn't really matter that much. I do also not have any relatives on Instagram, which is quite nice. I think that might be one of the reasons why many like Instagram over Facebook/Flickr (or maybe it's just me that reason that way).
It seems like you didn't want to pay to have the best engineers or you advertised the position in the wrong way. To be honest it feels like you believe you are entitled to have the best while not having much to offer in return.
It does kind of read like the kind of company who advertises for "the best of the best." Then again, when was the last time you saw a job req that covered adequacy in a realistic fashion? "You should eat and breathe Big Data and stomp the kittens of database caching in your sleep." I could go to Craigslist (or HN YC job postings) or wherever for in-the-wild examples here, but I'm sure we're all remembering the same things.
Tel Aviv is probarbly larger than Stockholm though.
The Swedish definition of "metropolitan" area is skewed, it consists of several cities and according to wikipedia its 6,519 km2 that is compared to Tel Avivs metropolian area of 1,516 km2. Still Tel Avivs has a metropolitan population of 3.4 million people compared to Stockholm's 2.1 million.
Just for others' reference, the metropolitan area of Stockholm[0] is the whole of the Stockholm county.
Just looking at the map, a slightly better/more conventional measure of Stockholm might be Stockholm municipality[1] + Huddinge, Sundbyberg and Solna, which gives an area of 350 km2 and a population of about 1.1 million.
The article missed Tobii, which this year got a $20 million investment by Intel, and has raised over $50 million in total. They're making a very cool eye tracking product that you (among other use cases) can use to control a computer with your eyes.
Typical sensational TorrentFreak article. This is normal procedure in Swedish courts. The Swedish legal system is different and what would be called "charged" comes much later in the legal process. He's currently häktad[1] which is stopping him from destroying evidence or leaving the country, like he did previously when he fled to Cambodia.
Wow, this is actually a pretty sensible arrangement.
A person who was häktad but was not charged (or was freed after trial) is entitled to financial compensation, with an amount determined by the Chancellor of Justice. It is usually around 500 SEK (US$80) per day for the suffering, somewhat more if there was media attention, plus compensation for lost work income. 1200 people were compensated in 2007.[10] If the prisoner is sentenced, the time as häktad counts as a part of the prison time, so that less time will remain after the trial.
Am I the only one tired over how TorrentFreak will say anything, related or not, to try to confirm their bias? This aid was decided on for over 5 months ago, in march 2012 (http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/574/a/94013), and it is obviously not the result of Sweden trying to get at Svartholm. But if you want to be believe it then please do...
I didn't know Sweeden gave money to Cambodia and I am glad that TorrentFreak informed me of this. Foreign aid from rich to poor countries is used in general to keep diplomatic cooperation flowing smoothly in matters of interest to the giver country.
Sweden is one of few countries that reach the United Nations goal stating that countries should give one percent of their GNP as foreign aid. According to the reports I could find it is currently the largest giver of foreign aid in the world, with regards to it's economy and population.
This wasn't spontaneous. It happens every year although the amounts changes as we see here.
I read your article and surfed around for better information, but couldn't find much. So here's a bunch of conjecture, feel free to skip it. Link me better stuff if you find any.
First, you can't go giving away other peoples money and call it 'charity', or measure it against actual charitable activity.
As far as I can tell, the 'best in the world' status relates only to the fact that they 'give' (redistribute) a higher percent of GDP than any other nation. They still sell or give arms to despots (as even your article points out). Much of their aid is in the form of government purchase of Swedish products, then given away, which surely leads to some crony backroom deals with industry leaders, as all protectionist measures do, you know, pork barrel politics.
My assumption, and the reason that it's easy to smear, is that people with power aren't angels, and taking money from locals to deliver off to some foreign land may be for reasons that are less than scrupulous or benevolent, that there is inherent conflict of interest (conditions for corruption) in every government expenditure.
Of course all such matters will be offset by very visible donations to the humanitarian effort of the day, in this case, Syria. Whatever form their aid to the 'refugees' takes there, unless it's going straight into the mouths of the needy, you'd better bet some of it will be redirected into winning the fight.
I'm not saying they did, but it is possible thay they threatened to bomb them with buckets of blue paint if they didn't get him.
We currently don't know, and saying either way at this point doesn't mean much. We need some actual proof.
Or, in other words, you can pretty much make up anything and flag it as a possible reason. A common ploy in propaganda which causes the same affect, if you if add a disclaimer that 'we just don't know'
Nobody is claiming that Svartholm alone was worth $60M to Sweden. Still, is it equally "obvious" to you that not even a tiny fraction of the lump amount was allocated to "strengthen the relationships between the immigration departments" of the two countries? If you want to believe it then please do...
I thought that was exactly what the article tried to imply.
From the article: "But today, in another one of those unusual political coincidences, Cambodian officials announced the “strengthening of bilateral ties” with Sweden – along with a $59 million aid package sweetener."
The implication is that the package helped (in part or in whole, that's not implied) sweeten the deal. How does the fact that it was decided half a year go make it obvious that the implication is wrong? Wasn't Svartholm wanted back then?
Svartholm has been in Cambodia for more than 5 months, hasn't he? Not to mention it's a known fact he's been there many times before. So wouldn't it make sense that the Swedish government made this look like it wasn't related by pre-planning in advance the all of a sudden generous and higher than usual aide payment in exchange for Svartholm being deported?
Oh, and by the way: If Torrentfreak would like to be considered a venue of serious journalism, they ought to learn how to find sources like the one Peer linked to. It's not even written in Swedish, for the love of ${DEITY}, so I do think it can be considered low-hanging fruit.
