Here is the entire article compressed from 21k characters to 176:

It’s easier to get away with large margins and not spawn competitors if nobody scrutinizes you, and it’s easier not to get scrutinized if you are small or the domain is boring.

Not a knock on the article. It’s nice to double-click on a concept and explore it with examples and from many angles. But for me, it would have been easier to start with that framing, because it took way too long to understand the purpose of the article, atleast for me.

▲

ltononro 10 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Nicely done! There is some shadiness in staying invisible tho

▲

tptacek 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I cofounded a company that ultimately got rolled up (Matasano, into NCC Group US) and think this is not a really good summary of the article. Rollup strategy is interesting!

▲

jstummbillig 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

As always the writing could be denser, but that is very lossy compression. I enjoyed the full read!

	▲	jtrn 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, I did too, and I actually thought about "lossy vs. lossless compression" when I wrote the comment. That's why I said that I was not trying to denigrate the article, but when I understood that this was the gist of the article, it clicked better. So it was bad framing to call it "compressed to." I should have said, "I found this summary to be a helpful framing to read before the main article."