[Scott]

(05-21-2012 12:23 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Whatever became of the guy from Napster? Based on The Social Network movie, he was much more my style.

Last I heard he's working for Spotify.

Which, for the record, is about a million times better than Facebook in terms of actually serving the denizens of the Internet with something useful.

[Caligula]

A lot of you are missing an important point. Getting married was probably a way for MZ to reduce his exposure.

Here's a quote - full article here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...wyers.html

"Had they continued just to live together without getting married, Chan could potentially lay claim to a much larger portion of assets, including a chunk of his $20 billion in Facebook shares, lawyers said.
Robert Blevans, a lawyer based in Napa, California, said: 'In California, people who live together without the benefit of marriage could claim they had an agreement to pool resources and efforts.'"

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

So now marrying is now a smart move because the state can rob you of half of your wealth even if you're not married? The prenup thingy might be true, but it still sounds like going to the gallows yourself to reduce the chances of the state sending you to an electric chair. And note that Donald Trump, mentioned in the article, is still battling his wife in court despite having a pre-nup signed. I think that only highlights how it's not really a reliable shield.

However, given some of the arguments in this thread, I now agree that the chances of her fleecing him later are lower than for the average couple, given the length of the relationship before money came along and their uniqueness.

[20th Level]

I know about asians and I know about doctors from personal experience. First off asian nerd chicks are VERY family oriented. There is no doubt that this chick has a huge family support sructure to keep her hamster from getting bored and running around with the mimosa drama crowd like other well to do American women. She would probably catch holy hell ten times over from her Asian taskmaster dragon mom if she were to start acting up and got divorced.

She'll keep practicing medicine until she pops out a kid or two then she will quit medicine and become an Asian dragon mom herself.

Zuck is in love with another kind of game. I know this from persoal life experience also. He's in love with the high tech, startup your own business VC/IPO watch your baby grow into a global powerhouse game.

She was there from the jump, she's low maintenance and they speak the same nerd language. That's why he got locked down with this chick.

This is an 18 to 20 year minimum stint.

All of this I know and I don't even have, nor have I ever had a Facebook.

[MikeCF]

(05-21-2012 01:22 PM)Caligula Wrote:  

A lot of you are missing an important point. Getting married was probably a way for MZ to reduce his exposure.

Here's a quote - full article here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...wyers.html

"Had they continued just to live together without getting married, Chan could potentially lay claim to a much larger portion of assets, including a chunk of his $20 billion in Facebook shares, lawyers said.
Robert Blevans, a lawyer based in Napa, California, said: 'In California, people who live together without the benefit of marriage could claim they had an agreement to pool resources and efforts.'"

People can say whatever they want in court.

You can sue a person for any reason at all.

What you can claim is often very different from what you can obtain.

This girl will not walk away with billions. That's a fact.

[speakeasy]

(05-21-2012 01:22 PM)Caligula Wrote:  

A lot of you are missing an important point. Getting married was probably a way for MZ to reduce his exposure.

Here's a quote - full article here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...wyers.html

"Had they continued just to live together without getting married, Chan could potentially lay claim to a much larger portion of assets, including a chunk of his $20 billion in Facebook shares, lawyers said.
Robert Blevans, a lawyer based in Napa, California, said: 'In California, people who live together without the benefit of marriage could claim they had an agreement to pool resources and efforts.'"

That is such bullshit! That the state could make you pay a woman who is just living with you outside of marriage. I could see if you had kids together, but WTF??? Even if you didn't knock her up, she's entitled to your money just because she lives with you?? So if you want to protect your assets I guess you can't marry or even shack up with a chic. Next they'll find a way to make men pay their fuck buddies.

[azulsombra]

Yeah, you gotta stay on your toes with these hoes. I wouldn't shack up with ANY chick while I was living in the U.S. or any female controlled country unless I was in a severe financial situation and had no choice. There is no benefit to doing this and it would only make it more difficult for you to bang other girls on the side.

[Timoteo]

(05-21-2012 07:59 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(05-21-2012 01:22 PM)Caligula Wrote:  

A lot of you are missing an important point. Getting married was probably a way for MZ to reduce his exposure.

Here's a quote - full article here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...wyers.html

"Had they continued just to live together without getting married, Chan could potentially lay claim to a much larger portion of assets, including a chunk of his $20 billion in Facebook shares, lawyers said.
Robert Blevans, a lawyer based in Napa, California, said: 'In California, people who live together without the benefit of marriage could claim they had an agreement to pool resources and efforts.'"

That is such bullshit! That the state could make you pay a woman who is just living with you outside of marriage. I could see if you had kids together, but WTF??? Even if you didn't knock her up, she's entitled to your money just because she lives with you?? So if you want to protect your assets I guess you can't marry or even shack up with a chic. Next they'll find a way to make men pay their fuck buddies.

This is where the concept was born and the precedent set:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Mitchelson

[Cincinnatus]

Aannndddd today in the NY Times, an article titled Zuckerberg's Property Status, Post-Marriage

[porscheguy]

(05-21-2012 07:59 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(05-21-2012 01:22 PM)Caligula Wrote:  

A lot of you are missing an important point. Getting married was probably a way for MZ to reduce his exposure.

Here's a quote - full article here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...wyers.html

"Had they continued just to live together without getting married, Chan could potentially lay claim to a much larger portion of assets, including a chunk of his $20 billion in Facebook shares, lawyers said.
Robert Blevans, a lawyer based in Napa, California, said: 'In California, people who live together without the benefit of marriage could claim they had an agreement to pool resources and efforts.'"

That is such bullshit! That the state could make you pay a woman who is just living with you outside of marriage. I could see if you had kids together, but WTF??? Even if you didn't knock her up, she's entitled to your money just because she lives with you?? So if you want to protect your assets I guess you can't marry or even shack up with a chic. Next they'll find a way to make men pay their fuck buddies.

That article is overreaching a bit. California does have some draconian divorce laws, but the courts have not made "Palimony" stick. It's come through once or twice when a few people decided that settlement was going to be cheaper than constant litigation. As far as pooling resources goes, she'd be hard pressed to show she brought anything to the table.

[Basil Ransom]

Haha, apparently she made a contract with him guaranteeing that he'd spend enough time with her, after she graduated from Harvard, i.e. way before they got married:

Quote:

One date per week, a minimum of a hundred minutes of alone time, not in his apartment and definitely not at Facebook.

Haha, this reminded me of something Roosh noted when comparing American girls with Eastern European ones. With an American girl, your presence alone is not enough for her - you always have to be going OUT, to some other attraction. With an EE girl, according to Roosh, her need to go out on successive dates is diminished. Personally, it's usually more fun to go out and do something, but American girls insist on it in a way that marginalizes the man. She does it in a way that says "YOU alone are not worth hanging out with - I need an outing to make it worth hanging out with you."

Of course, this 'contract' might be made up by a journalist.

Link: http://gawker.com/5014640/dating-mark-zu...-the-rules

[dragnet]

(05-21-2012 01:22 PM)Caligula Wrote:  

A lot of you are missing an important point. Getting married was probably a way for MZ to reduce his exposure.

Here's a quote - full article here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...wyers.html

"Had they continued just to live together without getting married, Chan could potentially lay claim to a much larger portion of assets, including a chunk of his $20 billion in Facebook shares, lawyers said.
Robert Blevans, a lawyer based in Napa, California, said: 'In California, people who live together without the benefit of marriage could claim they had an agreement to pool resources and efforts.'"

This is fucked up. What if you have a female roommate---you're definitely "pooling resources" because she's splitting half the rent. Under this ridiculously broad statute she could claim you guys were having sex and take half your shit when she moves out.

Compulsory wealth transfer from men to women is the name of the game. Whether through marriage, divorce, taxes---count on it.

[Timoteo]

(05-21-2012 10:37 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

Haha, apparently she made a contract with him guaranteeing that he'd spend enough time with her, after she graduated from Harvard, i.e. way before they got married:

Quote:

One date per week, a minimum of a hundred minutes of alone time, not in his apartment and definitely not at Facebook.

Haha, this reminded me of something Roosh noted when comparing American girls with Eastern European ones. With an American girl, your presence alone is not enough for her - you always have to be going OUT, to some other attraction. With an EE girl, according to Roosh, her need to go out on successive dates is diminished. Personally, it's usually more fun to go out and do something, but American girls insist on it in a way that marginalizes the man. She does it in a way that says "YOU alone are not worth hanging out with - I need an outing to make it worth hanging out with you."

Of course, this 'contract' might be made up by a journalist.

Link: http://gawker.com/5014640/dating-mark-zu...-the-rules

Yep. Because of the non-existent attention span, they need to be constantly stimulated and entertained. I love dating profiles where a woman states she's comfortable going out and staying in, blah, blah, blah, trying to make themselves sound down-to-earth. Bullshit. Even if you stay in, she'll want to order takeout with you footing the bill. She'll want to watch movies, and she'll be on and off her phone.

Even if there isn't an actual contract in writing, I would guess that it's something they've worked out over the course of their time together.

[flyordie]

MikeCF is talking sense here.

There's more than one way to live, and different people want different things. Zuck, like most smart people, has lower-than-average testosterone/sex drive. Facebook is his baby and he spends most of his waking and dreaming life thinking about it. That's OK. He's made a few billion and changed the world. Most of the guys here have higher-than-average testosterone/sex drive and prefer to spend their time balls deep in a new girl every week. That's OK, too. Everything's OK.

As for Zuck's new wife, yeah, she ain't hot, but she's cool. She's a UCSF-trained pediatrician who wants to work, bought a $4,700 wedding dress, and had an unannounced wedding in her backyard. She and Zuck met before he was rich and famous and they dated 8 years before getting married. The dude who tagged Facebook's offices said, while calling BS on Sorkin's movie, that in the early days Zuck's girl would bring them snacks and shit while they were working. Like I said, she ain't hot, but she's alright, especially for him.

[scorpio]

I think we all missed the boat on this one. Let's just face he facts. Passions and other life focus aside, a lot of these rich guys wouldn't feel comfortable going on dates with beautiful/hot girls. The barely passable nerd girl/plain Jane is all these guys can handle.

A rich guy like Larry Ellison or Richard Branson seems more the exception than the rule.

-----------------

In the suit, filed May 10 in California Superior Court in San Francisco, the partner, Ellen Pao, alleges that beginning in 2006 she was sexually harassed by Ajit Nazre, an investment partner who recently left the firm. The suit says he made unwanted sexual advances toward her, and when she rebuffed him, he “engaged in offensive, obstructionist and difficult behavior.”

The suit says Ms. Pao “succumbed to Mr. Nazre’s insistence on sexual relations on two or three occasions,” but informed him in October 2006 that she did not want a personal relationship with him. For the next five years, the suit says, Ms. Pao suffered retaliation at the hands of Mr. Nazre and other investment partners as a result.


http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/22...ssment/?hp

   

-----------------

I wouldn't sexually harass this bitch even if she paid me.

[Samseau]

(05-20-2012 03:03 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

While guys were/are saying, "Facebook in the next MySpace," 1,000 people became millionaires.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busine...66998.html

Game denalists say, "Game doesn't work!"

Guys who run game say, "Facebook is the next MySpace! We're in a bubble! America is doomed!"

Fear and jealously motivate game denalists.

Don't let those same forces motivate you.

Instead of saying, "Facebook is the next MySpace," find a way to cash in.

Sorry Mike, Facebook was a ponzi:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/47518817

18% in less than two days... that's as bad as a penny stock.

[MikeCF]

(05-22-2012 05:39 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(05-20-2012 03:03 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

While guys were/are saying, "Facebook in the next MySpace," 1,000 people became millionaires.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busine...66998.html

Game denalists say, "Game doesn't work!"

Guys who run game say, "Facebook is the next MySpace! We're in a bubble! America is doomed!"

Fear and jealously motivate game denalists.

Don't let those same forces motivate you.

Instead of saying, "Facebook is the next MySpace," find a way to cash in.

Sorry Mike, Facebook was a ponzi:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/47518817

18% in less than two days... that's as bad as a penny stock.

Depends on your perspective.

If you were pre-IPO, you are rich.

So we are having two different conversations.

I believe retail investing is bad news for most people.

But if you can find a company like Facebook, get in pre-IPO, you'll be rich.

[Samseau]

(05-22-2012 05:41 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

But if you can find a company like Facebook, get in pre-IPO, you'll be rich.

That's true of any ponzi! Get in before everyone else!


Lol stocks man... that shit is whack.

[Samseau]

It might be true that facebook created 1,000 millionares.


But now it might be true that 1,000 people just lost 1 million.


Zero-sum, baby.

[MikeCF]

(05-22-2012 05:46 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

It might be true that facebook created 1,000 millionares.

But now it might be true that 1,000 people just lost 1 million.

Zero-sum, baby.

Sure.

And it's also true that the haters lost no money, because they had none to lose.

I'd rather lose 50% of $1,000,000 than lose 0% of nothing.

[Samseau]

(05-22-2012 05:52 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

(05-22-2012 05:46 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

It might be true that facebook created 1,000 millionares.

But now it might be true that 1,000 people just lost 1 million.

Zero-sum, baby.

Sure.

And it's also true that the haters lost no money, because they had none to lose.

I'd rather lose 50% of $1,000,000 than lose 0% of nothing.

Listen, even if I made a million off of facebook, I'd still be a hater.