Nov 16, 2012 · 2 minutes

This week, the Israeli Defense Foce and Hamas used social media to cover their own war and AngelList cofounder Naval Ravikant stopped by PandoMonthly to hold forth on failure, the shifting nature of Series A funding, and how to change the law in Washington.


In the early hours on Wednesday, Israel launched a large scale operation against Hamas, the Islamist party governing the Gaza Strip. Beyond the political and humanitarian implications of the campaign, it sent ripples through the tech and media world when the Israeli Defense Force announced the operation on Twitter. Since the campaign began, the IDF has been broadcasting updates on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Flickr, and Tumblr. Hamas soon began broadcasting its own updates on social media.

How does this change people's perception of the assault? Is Israel trying to control distribution channels that can't be easily tamed? Read the best reporting/analysis/curation on the topic here, here, here, here, and here.


[Image via Google Plus, Quote via Facebook]



AngelList co-founder Naval Ravikant swung by PandoMonthly this week to talk about modeling AngelList off of Craigslist, why it's ok to fail, and how he helped change the law in Washington.


All week, our Hamish McKenzie has been reporting from the great Northern wilds of Sweden and Finland. Today, he covered a little-known gaming startup Supercell that's about to be a lot less little-known:

The 60-person startup is pulling in close to $750,000 every day, according to our reporting. That’s 50 percent up from the $500,000 the Times reported in early October. Not bad for a two-year-old company, whose two big-earner games launched in June and August respectively. With those numbers, Supercell clearly doesn’t need more funding, but we’ve heard they’ve been offered a substantial round to cash out the founders at a heady price of at least $600 million. No word on whether the deal has been accepted or how deep discussions got.

Usually we highlight a particular comment from our threads possessing rare insight, humor, or candor. But this week we've decided to highlight a whole discussion thread. Almost 100 people responded to Bryan Goldberg's guest post defending Proposition 30 which he called "One of the most shameful and despicable acts of legislation in American history."

Here's one thoughtful response from user ajkohn:

The problem isn't Prop 30. The problem is Prop 13 is the third rail of politics. If we simply modified (and largely undid) Prop 13 then we wouldn't have quite the mess we have today.

Yet, when most discuss Prop 13 people reflexively go to the 'don't raise my taxes bro!' and talk about how you hate the elderly. So, you can't really have your cake and eat it too.

Prop 30 doesn't bother me much though there's a chance I'll pay more this year. Prop 13 does bother me for the plain fact that it doesn't make much sense and artificially grays most communities.

In short, Prop 30 makes some sense because it's a pretty logical graduated income tax. Prop 13 makes little sense because people are paying property taxes based on a purchase price from 20-30 years ago.