flipside

Scoring research by reliability in addition to novelty would help fix the incentives in research publications.

Replicating research would boost your reliability score and the original's too which would boost credibility for future research.

I've racked up 3000+ miles riding up and down the hills in SF (530 vertical feet over 3.7 miles). 4 falls, 1 going too fast downhill and overcharging the battery (dislocated shoulder), 1 crossing tracks perpendicular slowly, and twice slipping on wet metal. Except for the first time I only managed to get banged up.

Take safety seriously and remember that things can go bad any time, so go slow (but not too slow) when it's riskier. Knowing how to foot break and fall safely are also musts.

I'm working on Retrace, "Graph-oriented communication" for sharing the ups and downs of experiences via a waveform interface. Reach out if you'd like to chat!

Is there a reason this is published under your domain and not YC?

Just wondering because it sounds like this is the collective wisdom of all the partners (even if you're the one that wrote it).

So in short, "talk what you write" might be better advice than "write like you talk".

I do a lot of hackathons. My record is 4/26 for winning 1st, 16/26 for winning 1 or more prizes, mentored 3 times and judged once.

Do it on a weekend, have interesting sponsors with prizes, and make the judging/presentation criteria very clear from the start. Also attendance can be hard to estimate, not everyone will show up and not everyone will come back, plan accordingly.

Also, three pieces of advice I always give at hackathons:

  1. work backwards from the presentation
  2. only build what you show
  3. only show the interesting parts

Happy to mentor/judge, [email protected].

Plans like this sound cool, but I think it would be helpful to make a visualization so people could see how the payouts change for different exits, thresholds and % redistributed. Visualizations are an easy way to reduce uncertainty so people understand what they're buying into.

I haven't had much luck finding the right cofounder despite meeting thousands of people over the past few years so clearly there's a problem. A few months ago I decided that the problem was probably me since I'm far from perfect so I've been spending considerable time on self improvement by working to define and embody our vision, mission and culture (while continuing to hammer away on product).

Is quality the right thing to focus on at this stage or should I just play the numbers game?

Should we try to communicate culture and values in the application? Are those things that YC filters for?

I know a lot of YC alumni, are endorsements about quality or quantity? Are they important?

A strong case can be made because the line is extremely blurry and there can be severe consequences for forcing a category on people that doesn't fit.

Sex and gender are shoved in people's faces practically every waking moment which means this "highly accurate approximation" breaks down billions of times a day with consequences ranging from discrimination and depression to sterilization and death.

How certain are you that you or some close doesn't fall outside the binary?

I channel some of my motivation into cultivating discipline. I also apply discipline to periodically remotivate myself.

In practice this means I'll do a hackathon to build something I want, while limiting myself to using one new technology that has to be relevant to my startup.

To stay motivated I pitch everyone I can because nothing motivates me as much as other people getting excited.

As someone that used to lack motivation and discipline, this has kept be going on my startup for 4+ years.

Edge cases, I love exploring edge cases and even better, the intersection of edge cases (corner cases?). The more edge cases there are, the more interesting something is and sometimes they lead to discovering entire new spaces. I consider myself lucky to have stumbled into an opportunity with my startup that I find endlessly fascinating.