Sources told the Journal Rubinstein plans to develop a new Linux-based software platform to run apps on all of Palm's devices before the end of next year. And Rubinstein seems comfortable with addition by subtraction. The Journal says he "cleaned house" within a month of his arrival last summer. Still, the timing is tough for Palm engineers. "What a holiday gift," our source writes. "We're supposed to be told about severance tomorrow."

Before you panic, know that there were no cold-footed billionaires, no runaway brides. It's just that the celebrity wedding, widely believed to have taken place yesterday, is actually taking place this afternoon. Hope that tent is solid, as the weather forecast calls for thunderstorms. More as we hear it.

But Zuckerberg's most important backer, Peter Thiel, does not work on Sand Hill Road. From his offices in San Francisco's Presidio, he's set about changing the rules of how startups get funding and how founders make their fortunes. Through his Founders Fund, he has begun issuing "Series FF" shares to the entrepreneurs he backs, giving them the right to sell shares alongside their companies to new investors. Thiel, who felt unjustly treated as the cofounder of PayPal, wants to let his protégés build companies without worrying about how to make rent.

Old lions like angel investor Ron Conway will probably view this development with outrage. They feel entrepreneurs, with no capital at risk, should not become rich until well after their already wealthy backers get paid, Today's startup generation begs to differ. The IPO market is still a shadow of its former self, and sales to large companies are an unreliable route to wealth — and a sure way to lose control of one's company. Meanwhile, vast pools of private money are waiting to be tapped.

Zuckerberg still owns nearly a third of Facebook . If the rumors are true, even if Facebook flops, the 23 year old would be set for life.

Update: An unimpeachable source says the sale didn't happen. Was I played? Perhaps so. Read my followup on why I think this rumor spread — and what its purveyors may have hoped to accomplish.

From what we've heard, MyM sounds a lot like Meebo, the website which allows users to access multiple instant-messaging clients at once. MyM will actually hook into Meebo, as well as Friendster, MySpace, LiveJournal, AIM, MSN Messenger, and Yahoo's own IM software. Internally at Yahoo, MyM's already been dubbed "awkward," and some are worried that competitors will block it.

I'd say those concerns are typical of Yahoo these days — suggest something new, and people come up with reasons why you can't do it, rather than fixes for those problems. Awkward or not, it's to these Yahoos' credit that they actually managed to launch something against internal opposition. We're still skeptical that Yahoo needs yet another social service, but we're intrigued all the same. Anyone got an invite? Send it in.

The first reason? Data is king, and the promise of detailed data about its users provides most of the justification for Facebook's lofty $15 billion valuation. If most users are like me, I figure they skim their news feed, not clicking on most of the items. Facebook doesn't get feedback on items they like but don't click on. Voting will actively feed users' preferences into Facebook's algorithms, making them smarter — much as Google's search algorithms constantly improve by tracking queries. In the example above, I'm informing Facebook that I like to hear about new Valleywag fans — but Facebook fanboy Dave McClure's latest app installation? Sorry, Dave, I can't do that.

Data-gathering is key. But the second reason is the growing controversy over Facebook's plan to place ads in users' news feeds. Those ads will be generated by friends' activities on advertisers' sites and on Facebook product pages. Some people are already complaining that Facebook doesn't make it easy for users to avoid these ads.

It's not clear if the voting mechanism will be extended to news-feed ads, too. But it would be a smart move. Don't like an ad? Just click the "minus" button, and similar ads will be less likely to show up in your news feed the next time you log in. Facebook's ad systems, too, will learn which ads are most effective for which people. Advertisers might squawk at first that users can nix their ads, but since the whole point of Facebook's new social ad system is to target ads to users inclined to be receptive, they're likely to grudgingly go along.

The third way this could matter? The voting mechanism, right now, appears designed to tweak individual users' news feeds. But there's no reason Facebook couldn't use it to gather insights across its 50 million users, and show, say, the most popular news headlines across the site. Voting on headlines: Isn't that Digg's business? And wouldn't Facebook's entry into the social-news marketplace roil any plans Digg might have to sell for a price of $300 million or more?

There's no word on when Facebook users will actually earn the franchise. But since the voting feature's already rolled out among Facebook employees, it seems close to market. Will it click with users? Soon enough, Facebook will be counting the ballots.

Facebook has a history of protecting profiles from outsiders. The site once sent cease-and-desist letters to two of Valleywag's sister blogs for publishing certain student profiles.

The site does not allow regular users to see which profiles other users have seen. While one third-party application lets users voluntarily make their profile-visiting known, no application allows one to "spy" on the activity of an unknowing user.

Checking who's viewed a profile may be how Facebook found the tipster who violated their terms of service by sending Valleywag Steve Ballmer's profile. But were they violating their own terms?

Well, Facebook's privacy policy doesn't explicitly reserve or waive employees' right to check out your profile for any reason. Of course, the practice still reeks of skunkery — it's one thing to check profiles in the course of business, but these people are looking up records for kicks. This is a company with $150 million in projected revenues this year and a gigantic ad deal with Microsoft, not a corner video store. The privacy of millions is at stake. Google clearly promises not to crawl through mail or search records with anything but a computer program, and even AOL apologized for releasing semi-anonymous search data and violating its privacy policy.

We have no idea what else employees can see. Do they look at your messages? Your private gifts? Who knows? (Really, who knows? Email me or the tipline. Unlike some, we'll protect your identity.)