aty268

Wouldn't delivery be cheaper? Why are they shipping locally?

Twitter banning Conservatives from the platform for fair talking points is far more concerning than the government threatening to punish companies for silencing their users.

Clearly competition is not solving this problem. So should the federal government do something about it? Maybe.

The problem with these BE services is, unless you refuse to sell out, I can't reliably build a platform using you.

Google will eventually offer a lot of money to buy you and shut you down. Prove to me that isn't going to happen.

"don’t take too drastic of measures to get profitable because then you won’t be able to sell the company"

Could somebody explain the logic behind this? I see Dalton disagrees, but why would anyoneone believe this in the first place?

Thank you for sharing! I'll check this out after work.

I'm just asking a question nobody else is asking because I want to understand the likely impacts of this virus rather than the hype.

You may be correct. More so i'm just trying to understand what to believe and what is most likely to happen.

I'm just asking a question with my current point of view in mind. Believe what you want to believe, and for whatever reason you want to believe it.

They aren't scared right now because they are downplaying the idea that they could contract the virus, but once they start seeing more cases of people in their area / other travellers, they will change their mind. Very few people want to roll a dice with 5 / 6 sides giving you Coronavirus, they just aren't seeing the odds yet.

I agree, so let's assume the US doesn't intervene at all.

Exponential growth is occurring because the median person is infecting more than one other person, which right now is coming from people not knowing they have the virus and not worrying about getting the virus.

Even without government intervention, as cases increase people will start taking this more seriously and the exponential growth will stop. Even if you don't have symptoms but have the virus, you aren't going to that concert or that vacation because you don't want to catch the virus from someone else.

Of course, that is the explanation for the exponential growth in the early stages. US citizens don't care right now. Once the virus grows, people will start being more careful, whether they have symptoms or not, because they don't want to get the virus. This along with some government intervention and businesses closing shop will destroy the exponential growth, as we see with China and will soon see with Italy.

You assume exponential growth will just continue, which I am claiming is false with China as an example. If simple proper measures are taken, (which they will be once more people are infected) like shutting the majority of businesses down, restricted travel, people washing their hands and not going out of their way to concerts and big meetings, you don't have the exponential growth.

That's a good point, I suppose my argument hinges on the fact we can prevent exponential growth and if that isn't the case because the data is wrong...

Please keep in mind I might be wrong, I just want to understand things outside of the hype.

So I don't buy all the hype, can somebody tell me why i'm wrong? I keep hearing claims from brilliant people that 50-80% of the population could easily be infected.

Exponential growth is obviously the answer, and is occurring because the median person is infecting more than one other person, which right now is coming from people not knowing they have the virus and not worrying about getting the virus. This will change as more people become infected. Assuming even the most BASIC of measures are taken, (people washing their hands, not going to crowded areas often, not travelling etc.) this will probably stop exponential growth.

In China, 5 people have been infected for every 100,000 citizens, and the virus isn't exponentially growing anymore. But fine, maybe they took good measures.

In Italy, it's closer to 20 people per 100,000. Fine, four times as high, but still a TINY portion of the population. If you assume that their graph will ever look anything like China's, there is no way in hell more than 1% of the population will be infected. It probably won't come within two orders of magnitude.

In what god forsaken situation could even 1% of the US get the Coronavirus?

Even without government intervention, as cases increase people will start taking this more seriously and the exponential growth will stop. Even if you don't have symptoms but have the virus, you aren't going to that concert or that vacation because you don't want to catch the virus from someone else. As long as you at most infect 1 other person, the exponential growth stops. This will happen way before 1% of the population is infected.

EDIT: I'm incorrect in the idea that people shouldn't worry about it, you should, but I believe that worrying about it will be enough to stop the exponential growth.

Thanks for the comment, this is really interesting. I guess i'm still confused what people actually do with these PDF's though. Are people looking at a PDF sent to them and manually entering that data somewhere else (like payroll or accounting), so this tool would take that data from the PDF and pump it in there automatically?

Thanks again, I just want to make sure I understand.

Out of curiosity, what exactly are non-technical people doing with PDF's, and why does there need to be a universal tool in the space? What would the tool do with the extracted data?

What about indian male founders? As a W/M, I feel like I know more of them that were successful than W/M founders.

It's shocking how few people understand this, and how good YC is at painting the narrative that this isn't the case.

My roommate, after reading all of pg's essays and learning the YC mantra, came to the conclusion that they don't care about making money, and just want to do good for the world. That is the picture they paint to get smart people to work on problems that are most likely going to fail. YC knows what they are doing.

This assumes that wealth does not consist of new or alternative resources.

If you own real estate in California, I would sell while you still can.

I understand. I apologize. You may want to remove my comment on the other thread then (exactly the same), although interestingly it is upvoted there.

If they live in New York, and they have to unionize rather than just find a better job, something tells me they deserve below average industry pay.

Of course the employees would disagree, that doesn't mean anything about what they deserve to be paid.

I do not, so it's possible i'm misunderstanding something.

If I live in New York, as Kickstarter is located, what is so difficult about changing jobs if I have a family? Same thing with other tech hubs, you don't need to physically move homes in order to change jobs. What is so hard about it?

Even if you have to move, my family moved 10 or so times in a few years when I was in grade school for new jobs, never seemed to be a huge issue.

1) I agree, me and everyone else. This problem will be solved not through a union, but nobody except the bottom of the barrel wanting to work for Kickstarter. Then they will either bump their pay to get good workers back, or fail. Simple economics.

2) I also agree, but that doesn't mean these workers should unionize.

Their headquarters is in New York, not some island in the middle of nowhere.

Ignoring that point, if the employees really are working from somewhere there are NO other tech jobs, then that would be their fault. They took the risk in moving / raising a family in that area relying on a single company to pay them the salaries they want.

The price is slightly below average industry pay. Is that a call to unionize? Nope.

Then that was the employees fault. They took the risk of moving to the middle of nowhere, (which for Kickstarter happens to be New York?), and are getting paid a bit less than industry average because of it. Is that a call to unionize? Absolutely not.

Absolutely pathetic for both sides. If you don't like your white collar tech job, go somewhere else. It's not factory work where you're paid way less to do the same thing wherever you go. You make yourselves and your company look weak in doing this.

This is why the rest of the United States thinks tech is full of a bunch of entitled pricks.

And why would it not be?

If I don't like my job, I get another one. It's easier to do this as a software engineer than almost anything else.

Absolutely pathetic for both sides. If you don't like your white collar tech job, go somewhere else. It's not factory work where you're paid way less to do the same thing wherever you go. You make yourselves and your company look weak in doing this.

This is why the rest of the United States thinks tech is full of a bunch of entitled pricks.

That makes sense, I didn't differentiate between renters and and home owners. I guess that's what this debate comes down to.