The number of kids featured in such articles is really a drop in the ocean. So, coming to the conclusion that 'having a gift is not synonymous with being successful' is not entirely correct.
As a counter example, Zuck, Sergey Brin and Lady Gaga were identified as talented youth. They may not have been covered by the Economist when they were kids. But all of them are certainly successful in my book.
This Rand study looks at impact of lives saved and recommends that "Results Suggest That More Lives Will Be Saved the Sooner HAVs Are Deployed". Any mishap, while most unfortunate and tragic for everyone concerned, should not result in kneejerk reactions!
The lynchpin of this "logical argument" appears to be a Business Standard article that references a Morgan Stanley report that says FK is 4 times as big as AMZN in GMV. While neither of the two authors (and us included) may have the "raw data" that Morgan Stanley supposedly has at its command, we don't need to be geniuses to understand that GMV via exclusive deals with one phone manufacturer after another can only buy so much PR runway.
What really matters is the bottomline. As Buffett would say, it's only when the tide goes out (or in this case, when the funding tap runs dry), do you discover who's been swimming naked. Having said that as a consumer, less competition means less deals. So, I do hope all the shopping sites have their swimming trunks on :)
On the subject of happiness, Prof Raj Raghunathan's "A Life of Happiness and Fulfillment" is also something I would highly recommend. The learner stands to gain a lot of insights on the types of motivations serve to enhance as well as undermine happiness.
IIRC, this novel idea has been filed multiple times (and may have been granted as well) at the USPTO at different times. I believe that this is because the USPTO sometimes leaves it to the interested/affected parties to raise complaints and go through these rather than do the donkey's work of exhaustive prior art search.
I had this same thought - as many times I comment and then realize that it could be "taken" several ways.
It also amuses me to no end that someone is collecting and analyzing data from HN based (in part) on my sometimes idiotic comments and silly debates with Internet strangers.
Well, one threat for Google's search business is possibly Apple. By controlling the device, browser and the platform - they have an option to integrate their own search offering instead of relying on third parties. Not sure what the Topsy acquisition was about - but perhaps there is some sort of a social search integration in the works.
And then there's Facebook. The key for them is to figure out a viable business out of head search queries i.e. instead of going after all possible searches. Perhaps mainly target shopping oriented search queries via recommendations from friends?
Of course, this is all easier said than done. Apple has seen its struggles with Maps and even Google couldn't do much with Google+.
What a few big name companies (e.g. Microsoft) are getting rid of is the "forced bell curve fit" rankings. The core issue supposedly that team members are loathe to help anyone else succeed as that may not benefit them in the appraisal.
Have heard that, in the new model, your manager gets a lot more liberty in deciding how to distribute the appraisal budget for the team instead of the hikes simply following a company-wide rule depending on the employee's rating tier.
My ex-employer went the opposite direction at the beginning of this year: moving towards appraisal related pay, complete with explanations of how management were being given special training on how to fit people to the right overall grade and even fewer top ratings were given out to make the whole thing cost neutral. You may be surprised to learn the process was not greeted by enthusiastic cheers.
As a counter example, Zuck, Sergey Brin and Lady Gaga were identified as talented youth. They may not have been covered by the Economist when they were kids. But all of them are certainly successful in my book.