drdrek

You are equating "Hard" with impossible. Its impossible to turn a for profit company against itself from the inside, its hard to push for regulatory change. One system is built to create shareholder value, the other is to create social value. Its like a vegan working in a pig farm for 7 years to change the industry from the inside, at some point you need to ask yourself, is she just whitewashing her time there.

This is exactly the type of people the cultural purge in big tech came to flush out. Trying to change a multi billion dollar company from the inside is delusional, self serving, narcissistic and ineffective. Who the hell do you think you are in the great machine of 100,000+ employees companies, of billions invested in them.

The change is going to be political, regulatory. These companies always can't change until regulation is there, and then they miraculously adapt. If you took big tech money for 7 years you were not part of the solution.

The lengths some people will go to self explain why they were not egotistical is amazing! This is not an expose, everything is well known, this is a books worth of convincing herself she is a good person after all.

You can ignore it, this is just a page taken from the Musk school of attention farming.

The financial world is not equitable, its about results. People from privileged backgrounds are more likely to raise funds because their privilege makes them more likely to succeed. If Being raised in a trailer park raised the odds of a successful exit, you can be sure VC interns would be having business meetings over deep fried Oreos way more often.

7-10 years is the realistic time frame for a moderately successful exit, usually those that are "Bought" after 1-3 years are actually failed ventures with all or most of the money going back to the investors to recoup their loses.

LOL this is Amazing... Holy shit

Don't get sucked into blind rage over nothing. Why do most employees nowadays prefer cash over options in startups? because for every successful startup where the secretary got a vineyard there are 99 when the startup limps along for 12 years and then closes without a sale. Generational wisdom turned into "Dont get suckered for low wage and options, get a high wage and invest in the S&P".

Will there be lucky founders that become very rich? absolutely. Founders are generally very risk aggressive and are willing to go boom or bust. But for an average person that just want a good life why risk lower living standards for a low change of riches?

If you are very risk aggressive you can push for more equity, but expect your salary to be much lower than your peers. Most veteran SE will advise against it.

There are very serious talks about forcing google to divest from Chrome/Android, I would bet that's the reason

As much as we lampoon capitalism in western countries, it's interesting the companies above a certain size are treated as public goods and not as a private venture. No one would enforce this on mom and pop shop or even a small chain store.

You are actually getting overly philosophical. The reason is that a step of chatbot training is to fine tune the base model to less frequently respond with non answers. I have not read the article, but the answer is: Because they are specifically built not to. Its like asking why so few salesmen end a call with "yeah it seems our product is not the right solution for you"

Firstly, there are many tiny subcultures that by definition you will not know about if you are not part of them. Secondly, I think that there is a hidden assumption in western audience that sub\counter culture are universally good, So when we see negative ones they do not register as counter cultures. The Man-o-sphere, N-th level gender advocates, Fascists, National Purity, Marxists, Libertarians. If anything there is so much fragmentation that we have fractured to endless stream of sub cultures that can no longer talk to each other. There is no longer any cultural center to even deviate from when everyone lives in a personalized media landscape.

As with many more modern "Open source" projects, the openness is more of a "You can try for free, and once you need production level SLA come call us". While the source code is available to look at it's more of a facade as almost no one change it but the owning company. Limited by complexity of the project, maintainer politics and IP around supporting tools and materials.

OSS has basically theseus shiped into something completely different. Not a criticism just an observation.

It funny because both companies went to shit and the whole thing was mostly a pissing contest

I loled

Follow the other instructions if you wish to be top 1% super-achiever. If you like a more realistic approach to the everyday man, I would recommend to be part of a social circle of developers. Friends from Uni, some local coding meetup, a group of like minded people at work. By hanging out with people that are developers you will share experiences, humor, struggles, etc. you will learn from their experience and they from yours, they will pique your interest in things you didn't know about or guide you to technical words you missed in your vocabulary. Essentially you will be learning by osmosis.

The issue is that it is not linear. The customer needs change, you understand that you are talking to the wrong people, etc. It takes way longer than you think.

The general advice I can give is that if you think you got PMF, and you cant get a consistent high volume pipeline of customers with high conversion rate, you did not in fact get to PMF.

By the time really get to PMF you are probably managing 10-100s of people and have no time to think about PMF.

It's wasn't meant to be factual, its presenting the narrative the Democrats tell themselves. "We are the academic, rational side" I'm not arguing the factuality of this because it doesn't matter. Regardless if it's true or not, it's missing the fact that you must also take the emotional state of the listener when presenting ideas. And while the Democratic side is hyper attuned to notice the emotion of being offended they are absolutely tone deaf to fear.

Can the doomers relax? He is mentally unstable and egomaniac, but do you really think the US is this fregile? Have you met CEOs and politicians? most of them are egomaniacs and some are mentally unstable. If the system could not handle them in power the country would have crumbled long ago... Will it be better or worse? who knows. but definitely not OMFG ruined everything gone. Have a day off and calm down.

There were posts left up on many divisive issues with a "Be kind" message on them. I think what you are thinking of is a "election stolen, storm the capitol" posts :)

Yup, its hard to claim you are going to address systemic issues when you are unable to get over internal petty politics of your own party system

> Biden came after Trump.

Exactly, Yeah! He was the white man not in mental decline that said that everything is going to be alright.

> What motivated people is inflation and border crossings.

Yes, these are some of the issues that needed to be addressed instead of gender politics and foreign policy.

What is the disagreement?

LOL democrats really did a number on themselves here!

The majority of the country was telling them "We are having change anxiety after Obama and we are having distrust in institutions after Covid". So what did they do? Cling to the same power structures with a dead man walking, doubled down on gender politics, devolved internally into morality based foreign policy shout match and the cherry on top put an uncharismatic non white woman as the candidate. At every step of the way they very eloquently and academically explained why they have the right solutions while completely ignoring the emotional state of the nation.

All they had to do was bring a calming white man that is not in cognitive decline that would reassure the nation that everything was going to be alright. That the America they know and love is here to stay.

You may don't like that this was reality, that your progressive views are more "right" than that, but it is. So now enjoy being factually, morally, academically correct with trump as the president with control on the congress. What a joke.

With a lot of assumptions I would wager that it was indeed the founder skill set issue.

Doing B2B sales is a skill, doing B2B marketing is a skill, doing fundraising is a skill, managing R&D is a skill, customer relations, legal, compliance, etc. You can learn anything, but you cant learn everything.

If he had two founders, one from a sales background and one from R&D management while he was the product guy, I would wager his story would be different.

Why are there so many site publishing solutions? Is it that good of a business? Is it advantageous to smaller players?

Very culture based. In my country giving people unsolicited advice is basically a national sport.

Heh, you should probably take your idea seriously if you put any effort into it, don't you think?

I'm sure there is a good core for this idea but if your product can be replaced by a google docs folder and copy pasting from a chatbot than more likely than not you need to do more ideation

I have zero faith in AI for this use case. But if you want an example for this idea with actual human validation, a small Israeli VC fund created an "Idea Graveyard" where entrepreneurs share ideas that failed with an explanation of what was the idea, how far did it get, and why it failed.

I think that for someone with zero experience in funding a VC backed company its a great place to get a feeling of what you need to do to "Validate" your idea, by seeing what people in similar positions did to validate theirs.

https://www.ideas.rip/ideas/

(I'm not from that fund, and they are not investing in my company)

The poor guy is in the bad position of a lot processing power (intelligence), but with bad inputs (lack of experience and bad attitude) so his conclusion are elaborately wrong.

We always think of the IQ curve meme as representing raw computation power of the individual but its usually just life experience and ability to accept new contradicting information. And this guy is smack solid in the middle of that drawing.

But this is already the situation in the last 15 years, your gmail spam filter is already a machine learning algorithm that filters out automatically generated content. Mail as a vetted technology is way ahead of other forms of communications in the department of filtering unwanted content.

Anyone that tried to set up a new email domain will tell you its quite a serious task. Email spammers are constantly on the run, setting up new domains, changing up the content to evade spam filters. Its very time consuming, hard and unpredictable. It time for social media to close the gap with email and make spamming effectively as hard.

I postulate that if we applied similar techniques to social media after a couple of years online discourse is going to improve. Or we are not going to do this and the death of the open internet will continue.

Sound like the writer didn't like routines and created the logic backwards from there. There are many things in life that are low impact on their own, but have a cumulative effect. Yeah yoga in the morning isn't 10X... I guess the only option is to be a chump or go straight to max dosage of anabolic steroids.