David Foster Wallace & Trudy

For many years since reading A Supposedly Fun Thing I’ll Never Do Again, I’ve wondered irritably: was David Foster Wallace mocking real people in his essay on the cruise-ship experience? Specifically, this passage stayed with me:

"My favorite tablemate is Trudy, whose husband…has given his ticket to Alice, their heavy and extremely well-dressed daughter… every time Alice mentions [her boyfriend Patrick, Trudy] suffers some sort of weird facial tic or grimace where the canine tooth on one side of her face shows but the other side’s doesn’t. Trudy is fifty-six and looks –and I mean this in the nicest possible way– rather like Jackie Gleason in drag, and has a particularly loud pre-laugh scream that is a real arrhythmia-producer…"

Because Wallace returns to and discusses this group repeatedly and seems fond of them, it was hard to understand how he’d simultaneously savage them with sardonic insults like these; to be clear: he is mocking them for their appearance, the sound of their laughter, their personalities of their children, etc., in a national publication.

I was often told that Wallace was surely using an amalgam of characters, or even entirely conjured ones, despite the verite nature of the essay; these barbs, after all, are hard to square with the ethics expressed elsewhere in his work, and seem difficult to justify from the reader’s or writer’s perspective.

Nevertheless, it turns out that, in fact, he was mocking real people. He was asked about it long ago in “There’s Going To Be the Occasional Bit of Embellishment”: David Foster Wallace on Nonfiction, 1998, Part 3, an interview with Tom Scocca at Slate. The relevant portion is below:

Q: Also when you’re writing about real events, there are other people who are at the same events. Have you heard back from the peoplethat you’re writing about? Trudy especially comes to mind—

DFW: [Groans]

Q: —who you described as looking like—

DFW: That, that was a very bad scene, because they were really nice to me on the cruise. And actually sent me a couple cards, and were looking forward to the thing coming out. And then it came out, and, you know, I never heard from them again. I feel—I’m worried that it hurt their feelings.

The. Thing. Is. Is, you know, saying that somebody looks like Jackie Gleason in drag, it might not be very nice, but if you just, if you could have seen her, it was true. It was just absolutely true. And so it’s one reason why I don’t do a lot of these, is there’s a real delicate balance between fucking somebody over and telling the truth to the reader.

Scocca does not press him on what sort of truth an insulting analogy is; in my opinion, it is a low order of truth, at the absolute best a physical description that could have been achieved in a less derisive way; that is: it is not a meaningful enough truth to matter much. But more importantly: there is a way to describe Trudy that isn’t a punchline. (The notion that there isn’t would reflect a total poverty of literary imagination).

Note that Wallace himself equivocates about the utility of the analogy:

DFW: I wasn’t going to hurt anybody or, you know, talk about anybody having sex with a White House intern or something. But I was going to tell the truth. And I couldn’t just so worry about Trudy’s feelings that I couldn’t say the truth. Which is, you know, a terrific, really nice, and not unattractive lady who did happen to look just like Jackie Gleason in drag.

Q: Maybe if you’d emphasized that it was not in an unattractive way. Which is sort of a hard thing to picture.

DFW: Actually the first draft of that did have that, and the editor pointed out that not only did this waste words, but it looked like I was trying to have my cake and eat it too. That I was trying to tell an unkind truth but somehow give her a neck rub at the same time. So it got cut.

Q: But you actually did want to have your cake and eat it too. Not in a bad way.

DFW: I’m unabashed, I think, in wanting to have my cake and eat it too.

I think he ought to have been a little abashed by the proximity of phrases like “I wasn’t going to hurt anybody” and “I couldn’t just so worry about Trudy’s feelings” and “not unattractive” and “Jackie Gleason in drag.” So close to one another, they aren’t coherent.

Even Scocca has to note that it’s hard to picture someone looking like Jackie Gleason in drag yet not being unattractive. This means it is a poor analogy, a bad description. Wallace wants to convey that she looks a certain way and is not unattractive; instead, he conveys that she is maximally unattractive and makes a punchline of it, then says it’s for the “truth” before ambivalently wishing it didn’t have to be this way in writing (which it doesn’t).

It is a parting amusement (and a reminder of the 1990s) that Wallace asserts that he would never "talk about anybody having sex with a White House intern…but I was going to tell the truth"; eager to establish his bona fides as a reputable thinker who supports the right politics, Wallace seems not to consider very clearly the relative value of these two disclosures:

  1. That a sitting US president cheated on his wife with an intern employed by the government, then lied about it to a country that —however much this pains me and Wallace alike— wants to moralistically examine and judge the private lives of their elected figures and has every right to do so, as they are the people and this is a democracy (to avoid confusion: I wish America were more like France, indifferent to the private affairs of public citizens; but that is my wish, not the wish of most of my fellow citizens, to whom journalists are theoretically beholden)
  2. That a friendly, ordinary private citizen was overweight, ugly, had an awful laugh, and made faces at her heavy-set daughter whenever the latter mentioned her boyfriend.

It’s hard for me to understand the reasoning he must have employed in deciding that the first is either unimportant or merits the protections of discrete privacy, supported by strangers, while the latter —that a woman and her daughter aren’t attractive— is important in light of the imperatives of journalistic truth! 

(Originally answered on Quora).

Since we can't know 100% of the knowledge of the universe, what are the grounds for atheism?

Many have provided the negative atheism point-of-view answer, some of them very articulately. Here is the POV from a strong-atheist’s perspective-


Suppose we are given a system of 7 squares to observe. All of them are covered with wooden boards.



Now, the religious guy says- all of these boards have pink dragons under them-



We ask how he knows this and he asks us to trust him. He says he has had a vision, an epiphany. He asks us what we think is under the boards? We say “We don’t know, we’re gonna look.”. He just mocks us and says “See? You don’t know. It must be fire-breathing pink dragons.” But we ignore him and conduct research into it. After some research, we are able to uncover 1 of these boards and see this-



Now, armed with the new knowledge that the square is black, we accelerate our research. Some of us have an inkling that all the squares are black, but we do not declare that because we still don’t know. The religious guy is angry now and is condemning our research and trying everything in his power to stop us.
Sometimes he puts on his more mild mannered personality and says- “Well, the other 6 squares definitely have some kind (may not be specifically pink) of dragons under them.” But we carry on our research further and uncover another square and see this-



We are all surprised now, in a good way (except the religious guy). Motivated, we really get into the research now. Some of us think the first half of the squares might be black and the other half be white but we are not sure. Meanwhile, the religious guy comes back and tells us how we were wrong when we thought all the squares are black and therefore, the remaining squares definitely have huge winged reptilian creatures (which he claims some people earlier metaphorically described as pink dragons).

We try to explain to him that the all black squares was only a hypothesis and we weren’t going around printing that in textbooks, we were conducting appropriate research into it, but he just ignores all of this and warns us about how the winged creatures will breathe fire upon us and kill us all if we don’t agree they are there under those squares. Ignoring him, we continue our research into our 7 squares. Slowly, we uncover all but one square and it looks like this-



By now the religious guy is furious. He has labelled us as a cult- “aDragonists”. But he calms down and puts on a more rational-looking face comes on TV and argues that the last square really has a creature that can fly and generate heat in some ways and that heat gives of radiation of certain wavelength that makes it look pinkish; all the things about pink fire-breathing dragons was just metaphorical to make it easy to understand. He also talks to us about how children really like dragons and they would be sad if they find that the last square has no dragon. He explains how that last square being a dragon brings joy and hope to so many children and asks us if we hate children?

Now we are still trying to understand what is under that last square, some of us have an intuition that it’s a shade of gray between the 2 neighboring squares. But we’re not sure yet, we are researching in that direction, but we haven’t put it in textbooks yet. Maybe the square is indeed a dragon, or maybe it’s yellow- but rationally we predict it might be gray. Then again, we’re not gonna declare it because we have been surprised in the past.

Then, a friend of the religious guy comes on Quora and asks “Since we can’t know 100% of the knowledge of the 7 squares, what are the grounds for aDragonism?” The weak-aDragonists try to repeatedly explain how it’s not the case that they believe there is “no dragon” under the square, just that they are not ready to accept it’s “nothing else but a dragon” until we uncover the boards. Meanwhile the original religious guy who said it’s a dragon is killed by another religious guy who claims it really is a blue unicorn. The unicorn guy drove 2 trucks into the dragon guy’s 2 houses, thereby killing him and his family.

Sam Harris goes on TV and says that the unicorn guy is violent. He is bashed for being intolerant and bigoted and we all decide we should be accepting of each other’s dragons and unicorns; after all it does no harm.

http://www.quora.com/Since-we-cant-know-100-of-the-knowledge-of-the-universe-what-are-the-grounds-for-atheism/answer/Krishnabh-Medhi?srid=iqLw&share=1

If Dark Matter and Dark Energy represents 96% of the “known” universe, even if it paradoxically turns out that we know virtually nothing about it, what other kinds of ratios-in-ignorance lurk as shockingly in our self-significant lives?

There are 23% of Dark Matter and 73% of Dark Energy.

Next time that you are in room with another person, take a moment to realize what that room looks like from the other person’s perspective. Imagine being that person and seeing the room from their perspective. Now imagine that moment in which you are imagining yourself as them as a fleeting instant in their lifetime in which your presence is all but completely unnoticed. Understand that moment is, for them, only one of an eternity of moments of a life completely other than your own.

The degree to which their age, gender, cultural identity and personal experience differs from your own is the degree to which the life they have been living is different from your own - different views of history where different events are weighted differently in significance. Events which are historical to you are, for an older person, events in their own lives which have not entirely passed, but rather live on as changes which happen to no longer be present, but whose influence can be traced through their future, backwards.

Now extend this expectation of other lives to animals and plants, no matter how small, to cells, and perhaps even to genetic histories, to chemistry and physics. Histories and perspectives so alien that the smallest hydrogen nuclei have more in common with the largest stars than they have differences, and measures of time become liminocentric, with the infinitesimal moment blurring into the astronomical eternity. From a singular furnace of mass blasting into hypercardinal intergalactic multiplicities, all-but-infinite fractals are continuously dividing into all-but-infinite moments of multisense realism. Each moment, each perspective a holographic reflection of itself within the fisheye reflection of the whole that it embodies. Each perspective is bound to a private cache of evanescent histories, transparent and shifting in the changing light of the mood and the moment.

What we don’t see of the universe, by virtue of the limitation of our perceptual tunnels as individuals, as humans, as animals and organisms…what we don’t see of each others experience and of the experience on scales beyond that of organic life dwarfs the ratio of dark energy. What is elided from our experience and possible experience is the true final frontier.

"Meaningfulness" is the key to INFP’s entire life. While an INFP finds doing something impacting the world in a positive way or beneficial to the people around him or her, he/she will be very powerful and fully enjoying his/her life and work. It is so powerful that it could offset all the obvious weaknesses of an INFP, such as being non-communicative, unrealistic, emotional and procrastinating.
—  Zhouzhou He on Quora

Q: Do astronauts living and working in a space station suffer from panic attacks?

A (via Quora): First of all, they test all of us for claustrophobia prior to selecting us as astronauts.  The way NASA does this is by giving you a headset with a microphone, wiring you up with a pulse monitor and then sealing you up in a big beach ball. Read more…

Is Backpacking Really Worth It?

Here is one backpackers answer from a great thread on Quora, here is the link http://www.quora.com/Backpacking-travel/Is-backpacking-really-worth-it


I was 22. I had a great job with good prospects. I was really enjoying life. I’d been saving for the past couple of years and was starting to get a bit of money together. I was torn between saving for a deposit on a flat or spending it on a years travel. I met my best friend for dinner and his only advice was;

"You can either go travelling, or sit in your flat wishing you’d gone travelling…"

My mind was instantly made up.

So, here I am, 6 months in. I’m in Thailand at the moment. So far I’ve been to India, Malaysia, Borneo, Indonesia, Vietnam, Cambodia and Thailand. I decided to take a break for 3 weeks now I’m half way through, so I picked up a guitar and got some lessons, something I’ve always wanted to do but never had the time to at home. I’ve just finished my first Hemingway novel. I made life long friends in India. I’ve eaten the best food of my life in northern Thailand. I’ve fallen in love, and spent 6 weeks straight with someone I didn’t even know before I left home. Spent days snoozing on beautiful beaches. I’ve learnt to scuba dive and I’ve scaled the highest peak in South East Asia. I’ve spent a lot of time listening to music I never had time to before (thanks to the joys of Spotify!) such as Miles Davis, Creedence Clearwater Revival and Bob Marley. I’ve snowboarded at 4000m above sea level in the Himalayas. I’ve sat on the roof of an Ashram by the Ganges in Rishikesh, smoking and listening to The Beatles with a group of people I met that afternoon. I’ve learnt about the bloody histories of Cambodia, Vietnam and India, from people who experienced it first hand, or people who have lost relatives to some of the atrocities. I wandered an undeveloped island the size of Hong Kong with a 7km stretch of white sand beach and didn’t see another soul all day. I’ve been shown to a waterfall by some Cambodian kids, and given them 2000 riel in exchange (50c) and seen their faces light up like it’s the best gift anybody has ever been given. I’ve learnt about myself. I’ve learnt about the world. And I’ve learnt about people. I’ve learnt that the unifying fact, across the globe, is that we are primarily human beings before we are Christians or Hindus, theists or atheists, rich or poor, left or right, black or yellow. I’ve learnt that experiences are worth everything in comparison with possessions.

And I still haven’t seen Australasia or South America yet.

Yes. Backpacking is really worth it.

If you were to fling a scoop of cookie dough in space directly toward the sun, how long would it take the dough to turn into a fully bake...

Answer by Jesse Berezovsky:

We can approach this problem by first asking a more general question: What is the temperature vs. time for a lump of cookie dough in orbit around the sun?  Then we can take a look at different orbits and see if we can achieve the necessary conditions for baking a cookie.  (Let’s assume we’re far enough from the earth that we can neglect the atmosphere.  Say, on the moon.)

To jump to the conclusions, the general problem is that to bake a cookie you want to put the temperature in a fairly narrow temperature window for a short time.  As far as I know, it is not good to “slow cook” a cookie.  Typical orbits around the sun that start from the earth, unsurprisingly, take on the order of one year.  So even if you design a trajectory that heats the cookie up to just the right temperature, it is going to spend many days at temperatures just slightly lower.  That does not sound like it is going to produce a tasty cookie.  The only way I can find to make it work is to shoot the cookie at speeds that are a significant fraction of the speed of light.  This is not possible with current technology.  It also raises the problem of retrieving the cookie after it is baked, as it will pretty quickly leave the solar system and never return.

First, let’s calculate the distance r(t) from the cookie dough to the sun as a function of time.  This can be found by numerically solving the coupled differential equations that we get from Newton’s law F=ma in polar coordinates (r, theta), where the force is the gravitational force from the sun:


and

,
where M is the mass of the sun and G is the gravitational constant.

I did this using Mathematica, with the initial distance r(0) the radius of the earth’s orbit, and and initial speed v0, oriented at angle phi0 measured with respect to the line connecting the earth and sun.

Second, we must calculate the temperature of the dough as a function of time as it travels on the trajectory calculated above.  Transfer of heat into the dough will occur via absorption of light from the sun, resulting in power absorbed by the cookie (energy per time):

,
where Ps is the total output power of the sun and A1 is the cross-sectional area of the cookie facing the sun.

Transfer of heat out of the dough will occur via blackbody radiation:

,
where A2 is the total surface area of the cookie, and

is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant.

Thus we can set up a differential equation for T’ (the rate of change of temperature T) in terms of the specific heat C of cookie dough, the total power output of the sun Ps, and the shape and size of the dough ball.  The shape and size come into play in several ways.  First, more mass means higher heat capacity.  Second, larger cross sectional area facing the sun means more heat absorbed.  Third, larger surface area means more heat radiated away via blackbody radiation.  Let’s consider a spherical lump of cookie dough with the density of water, the specific heat of water, and radius 2 cm.  (I will also assume that the cookie dough is a perfect blackbody - that it completely absorbs all wavelengths of light.  Of course, the validity of this assumption will depend on the type of cookie.  A dark colored cookie, like chocolate-chocolate chip would be a more ideal blackbody than, say peanut butter.  But this will probably only change the answer by a factor of 2 or so.)

The differential equation for temperature is


where r_c is the radius of the cookie, and A1 and A2 are calculated given the spherical shape of the cookie.  Again, we can solve this numerically using Mathematica, with the initial condition T=275 K = 2 C.

Typical cookie recipes involve a baking time of 10-15 minutes at about 200 deg. C.  So we will be looking for a trajectory that keeps the temperature well below this level with the exception of a timespan of about 10-15 minutes.

First let’s look at trajectories where we throw the cookie tangential to the earth’s orbit (that is, along or against the direction of the earth’s motion.)  Below is a plot of four such orbits.  One very close to the earth’s orbit, two orbits that go closer to the sun, and one that goes very far from the sun.  The second plot shows distance from the sun, r vs. time.  The orbit that is close to circular stays at about the same distance, the orbit that goes very far away quickly goes off the scale of the plot, and the two closer-in orbits periodically approach the sun. 



The third plot shows the resulting temperature as a function of time for these trajectories.  As expected, the cookie dough that roughly follows the earth’s orbit stays around the earth’s temperature (about 0 deg. C).  The orbit that goes far from the sun cools off towards absolute zero (-273 C).  The two that go closer to sun are what we are looking for, with a period of high temperatures.  Clearly, the blue curve gets too hot - the cookie would be terribly charred at 800 deg C.  The purple curve looks more promising, topping out at just over the target of 200 deg. C.  The only problem is that you may notice that the timescale is in hundreds of thousands of minutes.  So the amount of time that the cookie will bake around 200 C will be on the order of days.  Again, the cookie will be vastly overdone.  This is a general problem - the timescales involved in orbits around the sun are typically on the order of a year, whereas the timescales involved in baking cookies are on the order of minutes.

One way to overcome this mismatch in timescales is to vastly shorten the time the cookie spends near the sun by hurling it past the sun at extraordinarily high speed(as in, a significant fraction of the speed of light).  The figure below shows four such scenarios with different initial velocities, ranging from a tenth to a third the speed of light.  In each case, the cookie is launched at an angle of 9 degrees away from the sun.  Here, the trajectories are all on top of each other and look like completely straight lines.  The cookie is going so fast in all cases that the the gravitational pull of the sun has little effect on the trajectory.  The second plot again shows distance from the sun vs. time, and the third plot shows temperature vs. time.  At the highest initial speed (10^8 m/s), things are starting to look promising.  Here it takes about 10 minutes to heat up, stays around 200 C for about 10 minutes, and then cools down over the course of about 45 minutes.  This is not too dissimilar from what happens when you bake a cookie. 



It is possible that things could be improved by altering the geometry of the cookie.  If you were to increase the total surface area of the cookie while keeping the cross-sectional area presented to the sun at a minimum, then the equilibrium temperature would be generally lower, and cooling would take place faster.  For example, you could accomplish this by molding the cookie dough into a shape with many narrow fins, like in a heat sink for electronics.

View Answer on Quora

Thinking Out Loud

I found myself doing something rather odd today. I went to Quora and posted a question that sprung inside my head out of nowhere.

But I believe that even in extreme chaos, the Universe follows an order. So I wanted to sit down and find out the root of this question that I oh-so-casually posted on Quora. Hence, ladies and gentleman - this post.

I don’t have a proof but I have analysed this phenomenon for quite some time now and I think it’s only fair to say that negativity IS contagious. It takes over a human being’s brain, thrives in there, creating an inhospitable environment for hope, passion and compassion to survive, engulfing all the happiness, making it’s human morose and sullen for days and weeks until he is forced to do the inevitable - contamination.

The place where I am at right now, I feel is in a pre-epidemic phase. Mornings start with grunts, evenings are stubborn and the days end with a sigh. I can’t tell if the cause of this negativity is something/someone that has maligned all of us or it’s the deprivation of warmth taking the toll on us. Simply put, is it the presence of negativity or absence of positivity that brought us all here in this dark, dingy place.

I’m out. I’m done. I want to get up and see that one shiny speck of light to bring the mellowness back. Waiting for the notifications now, on Quora. 

Here’s what I’d asked - http://www.quora.com/What-is-the-happiest-song-of-all-times

Contribute? So that I can make myself and the humans around me happy, even though for a little while.

image

Original post + comments here

CMU is incredible, and I loved it there. It’s the ultimate geek heaven of play hard, work harder. People can throw crazy parties that last all night, but totally understand if you don’t want to drink cause you have to go to campus to work on a project tomorrow morning. They throw costume parties for Halloween that are actually about the costumes and not how slutty you can make them. (Well, somewhat. It is college.)

Pick five random students, put them in a room, and there’s a 50% chance they’ll end up talking about Whedon, video games, Moffat, or Magic. Well, more like 25% because a whole 25% could be devoted just to the meta stuff like archetypes, tropes, and the evolution of story telling in media. Speaking of, http://www.youtube.com/user/tvtropesorg, is set at CMU.

No one judges anyone for being a geek - passion is admired, even if they don’t share your interests. And to be honest, that’s an incredible aspect of the community that I completely took for granted, and I’ve struggled to find since leaving.

Plus, that last line so fantastically bad ass.

  1. Andrew Chen – The godfather of growth blogging. Spend some time in his archives. Great stuff!
  2. Adam Nash – Former LinkedIn exec and really smart dude. Every post is worth reading.
  3. Sean Ellis – The dude who coined the term “Growth Hacker.”
  4. Conrad Wadowski & Mattan Griffel – Growth consultants out of NYC. Young, but not dumb!
  5. Brian Balfour – Entreprenuer, Angel Investor, Growth Specialist.
  6. Dan Martell – Founder of Clarity, Flowtown and lecturer on growth.
  7. Tommy Griffith – If you’re just getting your feet wet with SEO, start with Tommy.
  8. Matt Cutts – Google’s inside man on all things SEO.
  9. Chamath Palihapitiya – Former growth lead at Facebook.
  10. Andy Johns – Former growth focused PM at Facebook, Twitter, Quora, former Entrepreneur-in-Residence at Greylock, now at Wealthfront. Just don’t call him a “Growth Hacker.”
  11. Avinash Kaushik – The godfather of web analytics.
  12. Neil Patel – The guy behind the Kiss Analytics blog.
  13. Noah Kagan – Chief Sumo. Formerly at Facebook and Mint. Founder of multiple start-ups.
  14. Seth Godin – Yes, that Seth Godin.
  15. Nabeel Hyatt – Former Zynga exec turned VC.
  16. James Currier – My former boss and one of the best brains on growth IMO. Founder of Tickle, Wonderhill, Ironpearl.
  17. Tomasz Tunguz – A venture capitalist who gets startup marketing.
  18. Jeremy Liew – He’s been working in the web game probably longer than you’ve been alive. He’s been writing about growth related topics on the Lightspeed blog since 2006. Super smart guy.
  19. Josh Elman – The guy who helped grow LinkedIn, Facebook AND Twitter… The holy moly trinity of fast growth social networks!
  20. Paul Graham – The man, the myth, the legend. Go back and read every one of his posts. Posts from 10 years ago are still relevant today!
  21. Mike Greenfield – Seasoned Facebook Platform startup founder. Growth Hacker-In-Residence at 500 Startups.
  22. Jason Cohen – Founder of WP Engine who shares his insights on startup marketing, product and everything inbetween.
  23. SEOmoz is now Moz. Software and Community for Better Marketing. and the oracle of search optimization.
  24. Hooked: How to Build Habit-Forming Products.‘ Check it out.
  25. Nathan Barry – Successful independent Designer/ Developer/ Marketer hybrid.
  26. Mike DeVerna – Growth at Hired, BranchOut, Pagefad.
  27. Shawn Collins – Learn everything you need to know about affiliate marketing from Shawn.
  28. 500 Startups – A great resource for all things start-ups.
  29. Ryan Holiday – Best selling author has some great growth articles on Medium.
  30. Lance and Joanna – Great tips on hacking copywriting.
  31. Sangeet Paul Choudary – A great mind and excellent writer on Platform Thinking.
  32. Tim Ferriss – Learn from the master on how to hack your startup, your mind, your body and everything else in your life.
  33. Brad Feld – TechStars co-founder, author, marathon runner. Great posts on startups.
  34. Luke Wrobeloski – A world class data-driven designer.
  35. Alexis Ohanian – Founder of Reddit talks about their growth story.
  36. Danielle Morrill – CEO & Cofounder of Mattermark. Writer of things, often growth related.
  37. Vladimir Prelovac – An entrepreneur who often writes insightful SEO tips.
  38. Elliot Shmuckler – VP Product and Growth at Wealthfront. Previously led Growth (20M to 200M+) and consumer products at LinkedIn.
  39. Dan McKinley – Big data/ growth engineer at Etsy.
  40. Ian Lurie – Founder of respected Seattle marketing agency Portent.
  41. Will Critchlow – Cofounder of Distilled, the leading organic and paid search agency.
  42. David Naylor – SEO expert.
  43. Steve Blank – Serial entrepreneur and author of multiple startup guide books.
  44. Dharmesh Shah – Cofounder of Hubspot… Has grown it into a billion dollar business.
  45. Mark Suster – VC who writes great advice for startups.
  46. Chris Dixon – Super tall dude. Also very smart.
  47. Fred Wilson – The bad guy from that Twitter book. Excellent blog.
  48. Aaron Ginn – Head of Growth at StumbleUpon, Formerly Growth Hacker for the Romney for President campaign.
  49. Stephan Miller – Lots of good advice on SEO and social media marketing.
  50. Kanyi Maqubela – A man born in a township outside of Johannesburg, South Africa, went to Stanford, has worked for Obama, a few startups, now at Collaborative Fund.
  51. Evan Solomon – Engineer and growth thinker. Previously at Automattic and Watch Live Video. Now at Medium.
  52. Ryan Carson – CEO and Founder of Treehouse, an online technology school that teaches you how to code, start a business, etc.
  53. Blake Masters – Writing a book on Peter Thiel’s brain (Zero to One)
  54. Jakub Linowski – UI Design Tips for conversion.
Text
Photo
Quote
Link
Chat
Audio
Video