The next sentence after your quoted section:
“Even then, AI output is never treated as an authoritative source. Everything must be verified.”
936 karma · joined June 21, 2011
“Even then, AI output is never treated as an authoritative source. Everything must be verified.”
We build software that runs real-time machine learning models at scale, deep in the financial 'rails' that move money around, and we license it to banks and other financial institutions.
A surprisingly large number of my colleagues are here because of similar reasons - we like making a positive societal contribution.
We're hiring!
This is all about the level of abstraction
The ‘laws of physics’ in a game may allow you to do unintended things, it’s a complex system. Doesn’t mean that it’s OK at a higher abstraction.
> I did a quick scan of the Alexa Top 1 Million list. Currently around 0,06 % are affected
Only affects a small minority of mailservers, and even then only 0.06% of domains.
It's early access but very playable and feature complete, but it does feel less polished than factorio (obviously can't compare to an 8 year development effort!)
Satisfactory is another great play for fans of the genre.
Both games are 3D, and both use the additional dimension well. You can play them fine just like factorio (I did the first runthrough) and treat 3D as eye candy, but you'll do better if you 'cut with the grain' and learn how to build 3D factories.
That sounds so much better than “built on an upturned coffee table” ;-)
But I jest - it’s very cool. I love the physicality - makes it feel much more real than 3D graphs represented on a screen.
> do most YC startups write tests and try to write cleanish code in V1 or does none of this matter?
It only matters when bad code hurts your overall business velocity - what that means, only you can answer.
Nobody's writing tests for their purist aethestics, they're there to let you go faster - but there's an up-front cost you have to pay for them. Sometimes that's worth paying, sometimes the land grab is more important.
There's no single answer to this question.
There are no coincidences, unless proven otherwise.
If something smells wrong, it probably is. Trust your gut.
Make sure you're building the right thing, before you build the thing right.
Don't be clever. Elegant one-liners that make you feel like a genius when writing it are probably not very maintainable.
The second best piece of code is the one you just deleted. The best one is the one you didn't write in the first place.
Plan to fail, and gracefully degrade.
IMO going through that successfully is also sending a signal that you have sufficient endurance - there's a large risk for a corporate to sign up for a long contract with a startup, they don't know how long you're going to be in business for. If the startup doesn't have the appetite to spend 2-3 years to get a contract over the line, then they aren't going to be a stable partner for the long term.
You need to also have sufficient numbers of small/medium scale deals so you're not 100% relying on elephant hunting.
Something to move the needle commercially in favour of on-premise would be helpful in that evaluation.
that's pretty subjective.
or - how long ago would $173M have bought you the kind of power we carry around today in a pocket?
But does that same restriction prevent a rocket which wants to coast at 1m/s - under constant acceleration - from the surface to infinity?
I.e.: is the schwartzchild radius only a point of no return to light, not rockets?
And if not a hard limit to rockets - oh, I guess that's fun to know :-)
(Yes clearly utterly impractical - trying to understand if there's any fundamental reasons at play here)
and if it's not, taking that to its logical conclusion - why do we NEED to go faster than the speed of light to escape from inside the schwarzschild radius of a black hole? can't we leave under constant thrust at 1 m/s?
"I believe in one fewer than you"
a rocket takes off. let's say it's going upwards at 1 m/s at some short time after takeoff. why can't it then reduce (not to zero) acceleration such that it stays going upwards at 1 m/s all the way out of the gravity well? don't aim for escape velocity, keep the velocity at exactly 1 m/s until you're out.
yes, I know - Tsiolkovsky, reaction mass, delta-v etc etc clearly that's wildly impractical
but MUST the rocket achieve its 'escape velocity' in order to escape? why can't we have a casual stroll out of the gravity well?
escape velocity applies for an unpowered vehicle, right? throw a rock, it's gotta be going at least at the escape velocity or it won't escape. but throw a rock that's propelling upwards itself all the way out ...
if I want to climb stairs, I propel myself gradually on every step, I don't require that I launch myself off step 1 with the speed to get me to the top.
what am I missing here?
You can trade this for everything else - the exchange rate is up to you.
The man who says it can't be done needs to get out of the way of the man who's doing it.
it's not sufficient to say "oh, we used a support vector machine", and when prompted for more detail about how it works to shrug and say you just copied and pasted code from the internet and tweaked parameters until it worked.
Any interview I walk out of thinking I've had a 2-way meeting of minds, a genuinely engaged conversation as if we're already peers, rather than an attempt to simply answer a list of questions is going to do well.
> ME: “Sure, why not? Go ahead.”
RASP is the gold standard of guessing in which direction you're going to land out today, but my god it is ugly.
yes please, high level winds also!
in their example, 52% margin and a $400 CAC:
LTV/CAC = 0.25 years x $2160/year x 52% / $400 = 0.70xExcept I'm now having a major case of semantic satiation for the word "Tarzan"...
... similarities I found between me and John Carmack ...
We both experimented with burglary as teenagers (he was caught; I wasn't).
Does one discover one's inner burglar?