Recent submissions

Comment · 8 years ago
The book "Slicing Pie" delves into the topic of how to split equity before receiving any outside funding in detail:

https://www.amazon.com/Slicing-Pie-Funding-Company-without/d...

https://slicingpie.com/

The idea is to dynamically adjust equity based on how much everyone is contributing.

Some people report good experience using this dynamic split method:

https://cofounderslab.com/discuss/has-anyone-used-the-slicin...

With that said, I am sure there are a lot of different methods that could work depending on the people involved, it's not as if there is only one "right" way to do it.

Comment · 8 years ago
One of the best books I read last year was "The Halo effect"

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000NY128M/

It talks about exactly this issue: If company A is successful, we explain it by saying that the management is absolutely brilliant, if company B does the exact same things but is failing, we explain it by saying that management are totally incompetent.

It's a major cognitive bias which renders most "business press" articles totally worthless.

The solution, obviously, is to gather a large amount of data and do some rigorous analysis.

People have tried to do this but the general conclusion is that there are no real simple rules that a business can follow to always succeed despite our eager desire for simple explanations.

Comment · 8 years ago
Based on Nick Bostrom's fable about aging:

https://nickbostrom.com/fable/dragon.html

A couple of points:

(1) Unlike in the story, in real life aging is a natural process that almost all living creatures go through. It is not something that is externally imposed by a malovolent entity. So I would question the implication that not preventing aging is immoral.

(2) Death allows each new generation to take the lead and shape society according to its values. If aging was eliminated social conflicts might increase between the ideologies of each successive generation.

(3) Younger people could no longer just wait for the boss to retire or die to ascend to senior positions, they would have to overthrow the boss in order to advance in the organization.

(4) Even a low birth rate might lead to overpopulation if people don't die.

Aging and death are not necessarily bad things. There is a natural completion to the process. A sense of closure. Do your time, have your experiences, say good bye. Having the knowledge that we will die and that we will lose our youth makes us appreciate them more and gives us a sense of urgency.

Indeed, it is arguably mostly our primitive instincts that make us fear death and want to stick around in perpetuity. Is there something important that won't happen because any specific person dies?

Now, with all that said, if a cure for aging was really discovered I would be the first one in line!

NOTE 1: If the human life span remained the same, but people were able to be as healthy at age 80 as at age 20 that would be great and would pose very little social problems I think.

NOTE 2: Very interesting look at the mathematics of aging: https://gravityandlevity.wordpress.com/2009/07/08/your-body-...

Comment · 8 years ago
Well, he WAS a child prodigy who published his first major paper at 18 and got his PhD when he was 20, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he actually did independently come up with the idea of hashing at age 13.

In general I think people should just stop being triggered by Wolfram's comments.

Yes, he does go out of his way to emphasize what he feels are his personal contributions.

Yes, in some cases some of his claims do appear to be a bit exaggerated (e.g. some of his cellular automata stuff)

But at the end of the day, he is still a pretty smart guy who actually writes about math/science topics fairly well, and I think that is far more important than raging every single time he gives himself credit for something or emphasizes his own work on a topic.

Comment · 8 years ago
I have been thinking about it and I think the issue with Facebook in particular is how AGGRESSIVE and CARELESS they have always been in violating privacy. Just like Uber their philosophy is "It's easier to get forgiveness than permission". And of course they have an official slogan of "Move fast and break things".

So all these different controversies are not just a coincidence but are very much baked into their organizational culture. They are obsessed with winning at all costs and clearly see privacy issues as just inconveniences to achieving their goals.

I am not sure if it is possible to imagine a social network that truly respected privacy at its core, that didn't try to get away with as much as it could, that put its users interests ahead of increasing Daily Active Users.

But if Facebook actually operated like that, I suspect there would be a lot less concern.

I don't know if that is even possible though.

Comment · 8 years ago
This should not be viewed as a failure.

This is the nature of startups, even if you do every single thing right, work hard, manage the cash flow, innovate, etc., there is a more than 90% chance you won't get that billion dollar plus exit.

The only unique thing here is that Lytro got a lot of hype and raised a lot of money, so people naturally expected a unicorn.

What I am saying is these guys don't necessarily have anything to be ashamed of. In the worst case they gained a lot of experience that they can apply to their next idea.

That said, I am curious: Will the founders get ANY money out of it? A comment claimed that they raised $200 million at $360 million valuation, so theoretically they may end up with nothing.

Comment · 8 years ago
This is great stuff!

I am a CS professor and these are exactly the kind of things my undergraduate students struggle with!

Especially these two points:

* Start assignments as soon as they are given out. Stupid, right?

* Be curious. You are there to learn, which means digging beyond the provided material. So many students are sadly focused on the grade or assignment, not on the learning.

You should definitely write a book!

Comment · 8 years ago
Eh, I still don't buy the hyperventilating.

The breathless narrative is that Amazon is some all-consuming all dominating monster that is just going to crush everyone everywhere.

I don't see any justification for this.

(1) Walmart is much bigger. Not to mention Tencent and Alibaba who.

(2) They have well-funded competition and no monopoly power in any of their sectors.

(3) They only have 4% of all retail (online and off) hardly a stranglehold.

Yes, they will do well and grow, but I don't think they will just effortlessly win in every market like this article is implying.

Comment · 8 years ago
I really like this obituary, this is exactly what I was looking for.

Penrose not only understands the details of Hawking's work at a much deeper level than most of us, but as a contemporary of Hawking's he has followed his career for decades and can give us a good overall impression.

Comment · 8 years ago
Here is another "simple" explanation:

https://rweba.livejournal.com/446326.html

It's definitely WAAAY oversimplified, but it gives the first idea:

The "filter" just cleverly averages the noisy real data at time T with the Kalman estimate from time (T-1).

Comment · 8 years ago
I think there are a few factors:

(1) The culture started by Paul Graham, back when he used to write lots of essays, emphasized a certain "hyperrationality" and attracted a lot of super-logical people in the beginning.

(2) Heavy moderation to keep things from deteriorating and discourage overly polemical debates.

The bottom line is that people quickly get an idea of what is tolerated and what is not tolerated so they work to stay in line which doesn't seem to happen as much on other websites.

Comment · 8 years ago
I lost so many comments on IMDB.

I haven't even bothered to visit since they removed the forums.

I understand why they did it, the racism and trolling was ridiculous there, but there were some good comments, especially on the forums for the less popular movies.

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton