crhulls

I very much agree with your first paragraph. But then to say you could just simply invest in "in any Stanford/Berkeley/MIT person who walked through your doors, it was impossible to end up in the red." is the kind of non-reflective and overly simplistic thinking you are criticizing.

Being a good investor takes skill. The vast majority of people who come from these schools couldn't get funded, and most still fail.

The majority of investors even in this boom also failed.

My meta point is that we seem to be losing nuance on both sides, and that is coming through on many of the messages here.

Sensitivity is the false negative rate.

Although it is the opposite of what the doctors want, I would prefer a less sensitive but highly specific test.

If I had 80% sensitivity I'd miss out on 20% of cancers, but if I could match that with a 99.9% specificity I'd have very few false positives.

I hope this type of test can tune that direction.

I’m the cofounder of Life360, a company I’ve grown from seed to IPO, now with about 600 employees. This whole issue can be addressed by embracing a straightforward social contract, something I share openly with everyone I hire:

No promises of lifetime employment. I’m focused on the long-term health of the company, and our needs will inevitably change. If we continue to grow, it’s almost guaranteed that not everyone will be the right fit at every stage.

No expectation of loyalty. The flip side is that we aim to attract ambitious, hungry people, which means we need to provide real opportunities for career advancement. If we can’t, I understand you’ll move on.

If we let someone go after a single bad quarter, that’s on us for being shortsighted. We know people have ups and downs, and we don’t want to be overly sentimental, but we also don’t want to act rashly. On the other hand, if someone’s job-hopping every year, that’s usually a sign of short-term thinking. From 2014–2021, job-hopping didn’t matter much. Now, it’s becoming clear that those signals are important again.

At the end of the day, it’s not about judgment—no good/bad or right/wrong here (aside from obvious dealbreakers like dishonesty). It’s just adults making tradeoffs.

That said, I’ve seen how some companies shy away from being upfront about this, which leads to cynicism. We’ve had moments like that too—at some point, we started calling ourselves “a family.” I shut that down fast. It wasn’t popular, but it helped clarify our stance. You know what you’re signing up for with us.

My cofounder from Life360, started Hubble Network, with this in mind. Add me on LinkedIn - Chris Hulls - and I'll reply to you there.

Interesting, thanks for the insights.

We are doing a satellite integration with Hubble Network - 24/7 global coverage, no increase in battery life. It sounds like scifi but 2 satellites are up. Give us a year...

Of course I know this, but I am trying to go deeper. With AirTags and the new standards you literally can find and disable the tag for anyone using the Google or Apple networks.

I am surprised that people think the benefits of AirTags outweigh the downsides given the alternatives, of which we are one. I'm mainly just trying to learn.

I also think you probably are overestimating the deterrent value. Thieves are not necessarily thoughtful and the alerts aren't real time. Once they get the alert they might ditch the bike, but if it is back at their garage they will probably disable or remove it.

I also am a bit triggered by this line "Honestly, you as the CEO should know this." which is on the edge of being an ad hominem. Why did you choose to include this? And wouldn't you know that I know these things? Like I am asking questions to get nuanced user feedback. Do you think someone who runs a consumer product company (I started Life360, Tile's owner), isn't deeply aware of how customers think?