Rather than the cause being something other than corruption, I think this is in addition to corruption.
Without corruption all the way to the very core of the government (as it is in SA), we wouldn't have situations such as this. The lowest, cost effective tender would have been chosen after following proper due diligence.
In this case the due diligence would mean asking experts (of which there are many in SA) which, combined with the cost of the project, would still have cost a fraction of the R140m.
This reminds me of a story[1] around 8 years ago of the eye-watering costs of ADSL in South Africa. Whereby it was cheaper to fly to Hong Kong and download 100GB of data in an internet cafe than it was from home using the incumbent telco provider, Telkom.
But that's what Dustin is saying. If you're using the right tool or the right equipment, you won't focus on it. You won't worry about something breaking. You'll get to enjoy the experience.
These quality 'things' don't improve the experience, they prevent other factors (such as a poor quality backpack breaking) ruining the experience.
You need a backpack to hike. You could hike without one but that would involve carrying everything in your hands. Backpacks are the evolution of ergonomic design to make carrying items on long journeys comfortable.
You need a towel if you travel. You could drip dry after each shower or decide not to at all but that introduces another set of hygenic and time-wasting problems.
You need utensils to eat. You could use your hands, again not paying attention to hygiene, or you could be civilized and use a knife and fork.
Researching and buying the best ensures you should only buy once. It's appreciating that someone, or group of people, have spent months, even years paying attention to every detail in designing something that serves an important purpose.
What you seem to be forgetting is if you spend the time researching and ensuring you're buying a quality pen or book or utensils. You're also ensuring you don't need to buy another one next week/month/year when the current one breaks or you realise its not suitable.
That's also a bunch of wasted time saved.
Whether or not it equates to the time you spend researching the quality item is probably debatable and likely related to the item itself.
>"tweeting a picture of themselves with their new investors, M.C. Hammer or Ashton Kutcher."
Has no one else picked up that the only reason Arrington responded was because Bilton very obviously was taking a stab at MA in his Techrunch days. Who else was proudly posting pics and tweets about MC Hammer at the TC after parties, or blasting TC headlines about Kutcher being at an event.
Google has a huge revenue generating machine in search, and adwords. This allows them the opportunity to spend massive amounts of money on a lot of projects that will mostly fail. They're hoping, at some point, one or more of these projects will turn profitable. But they're burning millions doing it.
The problem with this approach is that they end up neglecting their core search product, which I don't think has evolved much in the past decade. If someone else comes along and disrupts search, its goodbye Google.
I think its great that you accomplished this, and I guess seeing as its hit the front page of HN you may inspire a few tech folk to believe they can too. But I still find nothing new to take from this that you can't find on just about any Paleo, low carb, excercise site (i.e Mark's Daily Apple).
You changed to Paleo. You worked out 3 times a week. You took some supplements. You saw some results. You did this with a day job (albeit 4 day a week job) and a family.
What new obstacle did you overcome ? what breakthrough did you achieve ?
I think your achievement is commendable, just not sure what its doing on the front page of HN.
That would be like banning liquor stores or corner shops selling cigarettes.
The monopoly is because the government wants a piece of it. The potential of gambling sites to make huge amounts of money is why the government takes any interest. They will restrict them and/or tax them to fill their own coffers.
I imagine you are talking from a US perspective.
I don't believe there is a negative perception of gambling startups in the UK / Europe, especially if you consider success stories such as Betfair.
What makes gambling low profile ? Its a business, that has a unique model that turns a good profit. Why should it be treated differently from any other startup?