owens99

This is a very worthy nitpick.

It’s not a coincidence this guy works at a big corporation like Volkswagen and holds the opinion he does.

If you want to know about the future, don’t ask the incumbents. They will only tell you about the status quo.

Great article. The part that stands out to me:

> Unfortunately, after a year of purposely trying, I was still not becoming Elon Musk nor any other “successful” person. Despite reading everyday, meditating, getting up early, taking cold showers, and many more things.

There’s a ridiculous amount of bro science in Silicon Valley tech. And this stuff doesn’t matter at all. All that matters is product-market fit.

1. Several examples are false (as pointed out in HN comments)

2. This post is descriptive, but not explanatory (startup bro science)

3. Even taken at face value, it’s Confirmation Bias presenting outliers

Yes that’s a fair point. We don’t know all the details.

Yes it is.

The business's legal structure is being closed and shut down. OP only has claim over how the assets of that legal structure are distributed.

If his partner goes on to start a new business in the same niche to do the same thing, legally and ethically there's nothing he can do or claim.

This is not true at all.

The business's legal entity is being shut down and closed. The OP only has claim over assets of that business. If he agrees to certain assets being given to the other partners, he has no claim for the future use of those assets.

I’m interested in this tech. Email’s in my profile.

This is a terribly unethical viewpoint.

Just because your startup is worthless doesn’t mean you get a percentage of your cofounders next business. That’s ridiculous.

Alternative question: really fast and SEO optimized personal sites?

Is there documentation to show which features, like this, are based on hardware sales region?

Anyone interested in the email space? I’m thinking of trying something around interactive email maybe using AMP for email. HMU

You don’t have to tell me. I am well aware. I am not defending CCP. This article still provides no proof and very clearly looks like trolling. Lot’s of people favorite tweets about HK and South Park. It’s a completely different thing when someone who is high profile actually tweets it out.

There is no way this is true. This guy is trolling. China is not that vigilant. This guy is not the NBA, Blizzard, or a major TV network. Though this joke may ironically end up getting him banned in the end from the media attention. I would love to see evidence and be proven wrong.

Source: I’m a foreigner living in China.

I’m curious why the author used phx-change function for the form, I believe a better way to do this would be the phx-keyup function attached the text field.

I highly doubt your point of view on this. Can you provide any evidence?

> When management does demonstrate credibility, Wall Street's usually more than happy to let them focus on long-term initiatives. Just look at Amazon, which is a darling of the investment community, trusted to steer nearly a trillion dollars in shareholder capital. Bezos has continuously poured huge resources into long-term speculative initiatives at the expense of quarterly earnings. And he's loved by shareholders for it, because he has a history of competence and putting company interests above personal ones.

I'm sure this perspective is not correct.

You are pointing out something that exists, but your argument about why it exists is misguided.

Bezos can do this because he is a Founding CEO. I recommend reading Andreessen Horowitz's primary thesis on why they invest in Founding CEOs (https://a16z.com/2010/04/28/why-we-prefer-founding-ceos/).

Founding CEOs, as opposed to Professional CEOs, have two things working for them: 1) Moral Authority 2) An Ability to Recognize New Product Cycles.

1) Moral Authority: It's not that shareholders trust Bezos more than anyone else. It's that he has Moral Authority to take risks because he founded the company. Per Ben Horowitz:

"Often, true innovation requires throwing out many of the foundational assumptions of the company. If the company is significant, doing so may be extremely difficult for the professional CEO. The company’s core belief system is often entangled in those assumptions. Since the founding CEO made the assumptions in the first place, it is much easier for her. An excellent example of existing, invalid assumptions paralyzing a whole set of companies recently played out in the music industry."

2) Ability to Recognize New Product Cycles: This is a skill professional CEOs simply don't have. Again, per Ben Horowitz:

"Founding CEOs naturally take a long view of their companies. The company is their life’s work. Their emotional commitment exceeds their equity stake. Their goal from the start is to build something significant. They instinctively know that big product cycles come from investment and that even the biggest product cycles will eventually fade. Professional CEOs, on the other hand, tend to be driven by relatively shorter-term goals. They are paid in terms of stock options that vest over 4 years and cash bonuses for quarterly and yearly performance."

So in essence, what you are saying, that public companies have the ability to be like Bezos, is simply not true and never will be true. This is why something like the LTSE is a needed experiment.

It’s a solid response. Not sure if it’s worth pointing out but you are totally fan boying PC and making his response out to be way more than it is.

I agree with this for the most part, though there are many false positives of “great teams” on paper who screw it all up purely because of a backwards methodology.

Methodology and people are not mutually exclusive. And it’s a lot harder to swap in and out people (though it may be necessary).

Yes, all of my statements are just one of thousands or millions of potentials scenarios.

Absolutely. That would be incredibly enlightening.

You are absolutely correct to point out the key hole in this entire article; there are thousands of potential outcomes and potential benefits of proving we’re in a simulation.

1. Perhaps the goal of the simulation is to prove it’s a simulation, sort of like Neo meeting the Architect

2. If we do prove it’s a simulation, perhaps we can make a plea to the creator for the things we want and need

3. It could be a combination of the two. If it’s a simulation and we discover it, perhaps the genie will grant us three wishes

Though it is also possible the author is correct. In any case, I would rather know the truth than remain ignorant.

Same for me. Also doesn’t work on Firefox Focus on mobile.

Space Engine is the most absorbing tribute to the question of our existence it has ever been my privilege to experience.

I’ve hired a lot of engineers over the years who were better at engineering than me, but I can get 10x done faster because it’s my vision/passion and I work 80 hours a week vs their 40 because it’s my company (I am also full stack). So I say I understand the product and market 5x better and put in 2x the hours, which totals 10x.

Debunked = Clickbait.

Nullified or reversed is different than debunked.

Flat-earth theory is debunked. This is not even close to that.

This. Debunked is the wrong word (clickbait). It's a great thing if the bystander effect can be overcome or nullified.

For web development the performance is within a breath of Go and a kilometer ahead of Ruby on Rails.

Wow, since moving over to Elixir/Phoenix I have been doing all my bug fixing this way but wasn't sure if I was doing it right!

This is pretty smart. Well done. Has anyone followed this that you know of?