That's an open research question (follows from its casual encompassing of all scientific statements), and more funding is needed to make progress on it.
From the point of view that the data was successfully collected, yes, it sounds like it went well. Actual data analysis will take some time. I imagine it will be published in Nature which means that the results may be embargoed for a few more months after data analysis is complete. I'd say that we might hear something in 1.5-2 years.
Look, the details of FBs operation are certainly not a concern for the consumers: the consumers have the right to get their privacy respected and there is no right FB can invoke to counter it.
The truth is that people do pay for messaging on the internet (email), just not the huge user base a popular free service can get.
As things stands, it does look like the only way to make lots of money out of huge user bases is by selling targeted ads, which in practice seems to be a rather unsavory business that shouldn't be trusted.
Instinct is indeed unfortunate, and I think it is misleading to the point of hilarity too! The notion that sizing a market (as others have mentioned: a Fermi problem) is the same kind of knowledge as that which makes babies close their mouths and wave their arms when immersed in water? Venture investing truly is child's play :D
Let "sizing a marked" mean "estimating the number of products that can be sold to a given population of persons". An very precise estimate of this number is currently very hard to provide, but giving an order of magnitude estimate is clearly a Fermi problem. Note that the difficulty is providing an accurate and tight bound, not an accurate but imprecise one and that the latter might be valuable too.
Solving a Fermi problem requires estimating a series of numbers from everyday experience. One then multiplies these number together in a mechanical fashion, which could be done in a "ready-at-hand" way by use of a tool. Evidently the process invariably requires contemplating one's every-day experience, and since ordinarily that experience is simply lived this meta-action is an act filled with "presence".
By the way, the problem of capitalism is solved, and the solution shows that it will allocate capital optimally; this is one of the main arguments in favour of capitalist systems.
The problem that the social reality in which we live only partially approximates capitalism (see: non-profit organizations) is the big problem economists, and anyone else using classical economic theory in the real world, struggle with.
No, in the highlighted section he is explicitly saying you can't figure out how big the market is by reasoning and the best you can do is guess.
In fact, it is a bit stronger than that: he states that the only knowledge that can be used is instinctual knowledge, but since instincts concerns things like what smells indicate spoiled food and legless that animals are dangerous, you don't have any relevant knowledge at all! The best you can do is baseless guessing, though after having gotten funding and done a bit of work you might have some basis for your estimate (there is a caveat that instincts dominate estimates early in the start up process).
The summary ars provides does seem to be what he strove to say, but since two people can easily disagree on what is to be considered "obvious" even that statement allows for less predictive power that seems reasonable.
"Who would have been foolish enough to squander the money, lives and resources needed to travel to and explore the New World?"
You can only argue that the exploration of the Americas was a good affair if you ignore the cost of all the pillaging and killing and deaths and slavery... If you include the inhabitants of the Americas when you judge the benefit of the "exploration of the new world", I'm not sure it ends up being a net positive for several centuries.
