Scott Adams is wrong. There are angel investors who invest in unproven companies, even at the concept stage. I'm one of them, and I prefer to invest in people. There are people who I'd invest in before even knowing what their companies plan to do.
No, investing in people is extremely common in the business world. Some would argue in fact that it is the exception to invest in anything other than the people first (and the business / idea / product after that).
A lot of what gets done in business, including investing, is who you know, reputation etc.
That's how many great investment networks function in fact. That's a premise of investing into people first. If you want to get close to Ron Conway, you can't get near him without having a connection that basically vouches for you. That's all about investing into people and reputation extension.
Is this post about angle investing, or about misperceptions of sexism?
There are probably as many definitions of angel investor as there are angel investment deals. I think he was trying to make a point about modern gender relations.
I have never invested in a friend, and I doubt I will. I have invested in capable people of whom I'd known for a while but were barely acquaintances. Friendship is separate.
So just like any other post on hacker news by someone with a product?
The "my experiences with product X as diving board for tangential point" is probably one of the less annoying positions on a scale that runs all the way from "pitching hard" to "cleverly designed to disguise relationship to the product."
Don't get me wrong, a lot of them are incredibly gross to witness, but to me this one barely registers.
You are, obviously. But isn't that the way tons of founders market their start-ups? That is, write blog posts, loosely (or slyly) related to the whatever product or company they are running?
