untilHellbanned

just installed it, i'm loving it. Most important to me is that it's FAST. Feels much faster than iOS Safari and iOS Chrome.

I tried to like Brendan Eich's Brave browser for about 2 weeks, but I didn't detect any clear advantages, so I stopped.

Keep up the good work!

Think less literal please. High-end stuff is still junk on an absolute scale.

The marketcap and "I want it all"-scale don't make businesses interesting. What's interesting are things that can't be quantified well and therefore can't be competed on by hard work and assholery.

Just my opinion, but Amazon, FB, Apple, and all these companies that these thought leaders like MG Siegler, Stratchery, and Gruber write about aren't interesting.

They won at the same game by outcompeting others at selling commodity junk. Great. How? Same way. They had leaders whose business won the lottery and simultaneously didn't care about other humans to the same infinitesimally small way necessary to win that big (one can lose big with that give-no-f*cks mindset too, hence the lottery).

Selling crap isn't interesting. Show me somebody that makes a similar-sized dent in human health, the environment, or world peace then I think the fawning Medium articles will be worth it.

My exact thought. Good thing I Control + F'd "800" before duplicating your comment.

800 employees is especially insane for a serial entrepreneur like Stuart Butterfield who should know better. Then again, the Twitter guys including Ev Williams were serial entrepreneurs and yet the overhired too. It seems an interesting coincidence in the technology sector that viral user growth often can lead to viral hiring.

use of CRISPR in humans is what Harvard/MIT want to protect. According to the judges, UC Berkeley didn't make that clear.

Even being a biologist who understands CRISPR well and having trained at Harvard/MIT (disclosure to provide context about biases), it's not clear what Harvard/MIT will gain with winning this fight. Because the incentive is incredibly strong, I feel like everyone will find a way to work around whatever patents Harvard/MIT collect. I see UC Berkeley's side in these patents because their discovery proceeded Harvard/MIT and Harvard/MIT (Eric Lander) is just sucking up airtime like Trump does to come out on top. See this: http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1825

I appreciate your comments but as the biologist hopefully you can understand that it's not like we are trying to keep our sample sizes small. We understand statistical power. It's simply not feasible logistically and financially to have the ideal numbers a lot of the time. Real life intervenes, so we do our best. For math/computer people which is probably many here in HN, I think they have a hard time with real-world messiness that is biomedical research. It's the same mentality of "oh I'll just apply my algorithms to this..." which works for them but not so much for us.

As a biomedical scientist at a solid US university, I'm getting pretty fed up with all the attacks on my field's credibility. It's similar to education where everyone moans about poor quality. While i cant speak to the average teacher I can honestly say the average researcher tries very hard to get it right. Remember most people don't become biomedical scientists unless they worked hard for many, many years in school and beyond for often quite terrible wages. So you can hate the game (drug companies, academic journals), but please think through any hate you might have on the player.

It's HN users who are more guilty of the biases in this thread.

Briefly, what's your point?

Let me guess less then 35? Male?

nope.

Target p53 no thanks.

40s ditto.

Don't you think he tried?

IMHO you're missing the point. Sure many of us want to get rich, but probably more of us want to built a profitable, sticky long-term business. The article makes it clear that they didn't succeed as well as they could've in building a business. Getting somebody to buy you doesn't mean you created a business. The benchmarking of business achievement gets even murkier considering the notoriety of Trello's CEO, Joel Spolsky. It's the same issue as with Path's $100M or Slide's $200M exits, which also featured prominent CEO's with products of dubious business value.

RE: Trello, e.g., see the part in the post about "Trello's value proposition". Their $5/month Gold plan was really poorly thought out. Many other areas, again as articulated in the article, we're also not well thought out in terms of building a sustainable, profitable business. Signups != locked in, paying, happy customers.

> The 2013 blog post that announced the launch of Trello Gold highlighted three main reasons users should pay $5/month for Trello:

> Customizable board backgrounds

> 250-megabyte attachments for each card in Trello (vs. 10 megabytes on the free plan)

> Stickers and custom emoji

Small mindedness sadly doesn't prevent wealth and power accumulation. Depending on your view, YC or Trump both prove this.

Upvoted but sadly you can't take YC prodigy and downvote. It's a lose-lose propositon kinda like staying in an airbnb. Say something nice about YC or don't say something at all.

Nope. The chicken and the egg starts where the money starts. If all the candidates' papers are in immediate open access journals (like the Gates Foundation is mandating soon and hopefully NIH will follow), then hiring committees won't have vanity journals as the signal.

I specifically referred to NIH as one the funding agencies that needs to take a leadership role for publishing policy. So this comment isn't super relevant to my original comment.

Care to elaborate? That doesn't make much sense to me. Scientists can't do their jobs without funding, so what alternatives do they have?

Agreed. It needs to start with the funding agencies, NIH, Wellcome Trust, HHMI, etc. Like the Gates Foundation recently did, they need to make it a requirement that you must publish in immediate open-access journals. I'd further like to see the journal not getting as onerous copyright claim but baby steps.

The people with the money need to put their money where the public interest's mouth is. Certainly not where Elsevier's mouth is.

Just like the moral failure Sinclair refers to, HNers are pyschologically resistant to the mention of YC in a negative light. Expect an automatic 4 downvotes, just FYI.

Figuring out which is which is easy enough. The real issue is people not over-interpreting the results.

As a middle american, I'm actually serious when I say this could be a way middle america gets on it's feet again. Being a biomedical researcher at a university hospital, the hospital has proliferated with all types of trainees. What's holding back the basic research side? It's an assembly line in the same way the midwest is familiar, the automobile industry. However, universities aren't good businesses, and what's missing is big pharma companies paying employees fair wages to do this work. Though companies saving the day won't work either because putting people to work we'll mean they won't get sick which is bad for business. So oh well on to the next approach.

> one that incorporates an independent, statistically rigorous confirmation of a researcher's central hypothesis. We call this large confirmatory study a preclinical trial. These would be more formal and rigorous than the typical preclinical testing conducted in academic labs, and would adopt many practices of a clinical trial.

As you can see above and from your quotation (and like many other folks who come in to save the day), this article is heavy on plans and short on who is going to do the work. Of course I support papers where every single experiment doesn't have to play p < 0.05 games, but other parts of the article wander in other directions. That's all I'm reacting to.

Not going to happen. You don't understand the forces at play when biomedical researchers (I'm one too) do the work. A major reason more specific to this type of researcher that he/she wants to hold back the data is in the event it can be re-purposed for later goals. It's capital. The time and money spent acquiring the types of negative data the article talks about (mouse experiments) take big dollars. I'm not going to throw it away in an archive. It's like donating to a Goodwill bin some really expensive clothes you saved your money to buy only to realize after you bought it that it's the wrong size. You're totally going to try to make it work often for years before you give up on it.

If you take issue with my comment and have ever worked for a startup that didn't pan out (should be many of us here on HN), think of the scenario if someone told you, "hey, why don't you just be a good person and open source your app and give all your customers to XYZ?" (Setting aside the armchair quarterback guilt imposed on you) There are a few who do that, but if you've spent any length of time on your business, you're going to think of ways to re-purpose the investment you made it in other ways before you just go dumping it in an archive like Github or whatever.

No thanks. Papers involving animals are already backbreakingly slow compared with cell-based or in vitro work. I know because I've been lapped by my colleagues using more simple systems as I slog through our paper we got rejected from Nature because the reviewers suggested another 3 years worth of experiments. Yep, year 5 into this single project, which we knew the outcome for 4 years ago. Not excited about this proposal at all.

Look I'm all for rigor but how about the people trying to make money off the deal pay for all the work and keep people like me out of it. Or don't allow the people trying to make money interpret the results of such preliminary studies so liberally. It's like the education system. Scientists like teachers, both of which don't make much money and do all the labor, don't want more hoops jump through.

Wrong. It's wrong mainly because elites in big cities obliterated their jobs and companies in the name of efficiency. I'm from rural Indiana and live in big cities now so I've seen both sides. The pillaging by the city elite is real. I can't fault big city business people because capitalism is good, but to place the blame solely on the poor rural people or their elected officials isn't understanding the problem.

I'd be interested to hear some specifics on why they were so bad. IIRC bezos/Amazon invested in LS so it'd be interesting to find out what they didn't vet properly.

Otto was a YC company so there's your answer. People condone a lot of awful if they 1) make money off it; 2) Have some emotional connection to it