dgudkov

> Solar panels still work just fine when it is cloudy, just with a lower output.

I assume you never tried measuring the output of a solar panel when it's cloudy. It's 10-15% of a sunny day. Closer to not working than working.

To be precise, innovation doesn't mean invention. I never claimed that Ukraine was the first to invent organ delivery, but it definitely keeps innovating in this field.

Anyway, the point is that there is a lot of interesting/innovative going on with regards to drones in Ukraine.

Off-topic: what a well designed infographics. Clean, easy to read, great layout. A very good job!

It's neat but pretends to be more innovative than it actually is. BI has already been decoupled from everything else. People use AI to generate Excel and Power BI reports. YAML/XML/JSON - that doesn't matter. AI can generate whatever you instruct it to do.

So yes, a nice and logical development of dbt, but hardly as innovative as the blog post wants to sound. Nevertheless, I think it's a good idea that will be popular in certain circles. Hiring a professional data designer is a good idea - data visualization is very easy to get wrong.

> The fundamental problem is simpler: no one will slow down because no one trusts anyone else to slow down.

There is another reason: greed. With that much money invested into AI (including policymakers), nobody will slow down or vote for slowing down.

A smart but wrong path to solve the problem. We need competitive markets that would force corporations be responsible instead of an extra layer of complexity in the already complex consumer world.

I applaud to the author for creativity and I'd be tempted to try (elements of) it in practice next time, but I don't see anything good coming out of it at scale.

This reads almost like a nuclear incident of the "Three Mile Island" scale. Not "Chernobyl" scale though.

> Place sounds like a total mess.

What big corp is not a total mess?

> Startups succeed or fail based on how much customers like the product.

This is in theory. In practice, a worse product with more money and louder marketing easily wins against a better product nobody knows about. I'm sure Paul perfectly understands it.

There are other idealizations I won't comment on, but the whole piece reads like an attempt to nurture an application pipeline for YC rather than the genuine writing I liked in earlier Paul's essays.

Here is an alternative point of view: get your degree and work for a few years. Then go back to university to learn business basics (finance, marketing, management). Start a company in your late 30s, when you know your subject area well and you have an idea how to steer finance/marketing (marketing is much harder that it might seem). Bootstrap or take as little investment as possible until you get PMF. Then scale up without giving away (much) equity.

It worked well for me. It can surely work well for others.