speby

This starts going into a pretty fuzzy territory here. Yes, you're exploiting software (Claude and its Auto Mode) but also this same technique could just as easily exploit a regular human doing this, no?

Neat. Kinda novel. But sort of impractical and doesn't solve a problem anyone actually has with current navigation UIs. I still like it anyway.

Likely, every company ghosts, either occasionally or often. So really this is kind of a 100% hit rate problem.

I think it is very easy for the average person to forget or not realize how incredibly easy it is to get calories into the body and how little food is necessary to do so. Most people in the world (I know, this is not everywhere and everyone), live in an era of food abundance. It's cheap enough, extremely accessible, often easy to eat or ready to eat, and that has simply made it very convenient to get calories in, often while barely thinking about it. Mindless eating, not thinking about what you should eat, etc. All of these factors have played into why obesity is such a problem (at least in the USA).

Sounds like software engineering is not for you.

One of the biggest weaknesses of a non-technical founder looking for a technical founder are basically the following:

* Not really having 'much' to bring to the table other than the idea and self-proclaimed knowledge of the problem and domain. As the article mentions, having some capital already, having some sort of following or verifiable reputation or whatever would help a long way.

* Not really having any kind of story around "What have you tried so far?". The least sexy conversation is one where the non-technical founder is telling you about this "new" thing to work on and build and the reality is they've only been thinking about it for like 2 months and haven't really "done" anything other than some cursory research. Like, for example, if they don't have capital at all yet, have they tried before they came to you?

This is pretty well said. I tend to agree and as a founder of multiple companies, as a well an engineering-background co-founder myself, I have definitely had interactions with "non-technical" founders looking for people (like me) and totally got the vibe of the needing a "technical co-founder" because they just need some "coder" as if that's the missing key to success (or whatever).

That said, there are plenty of very smart, driven, people who are not software engineers who don't think of a technical co-founder that way. So it'd be wrong to paint with a super wide brush on this.

This is true except FoxPro really was more of a 'normal' relational database model. It just had this 'tabular' view for its Database Viewer client front-end. FoxPro was certainly not a 'spreadsheet' product in the sense that Excel is.

Remember when a T-1 line was considered to be like the god-level status of internet connections? Whoa.... 1.5Mbps!? Later, more affordable DSL speeds would reach single-digit Mbps and it felt like being on another planet.

Now all of those speeds feel like they're dial-up modems.

This rationale doesn't make a ton of sense. Say they had paid you more. You'd still have these back issues. You wouldn't say, "I have these back issues every day of my life now but at least they paid me $2X instead of $X" ...

The whole premise of comparing a company to a family is not only flawed. It's just straight up incorrect/wrong. Very little about companies and the way they run and operate looks remotely like a family.

It does, but temporarily. If layoffs caused terrible, permanent, irreversible, core damage to a company, then companies would stop doing them. But they don't. It's not new, it's part of the up and down cycles of markets.

If we don't like layoffs, then we should also not like crazy hiring sprees either because of their recklessness and waste.

You mean like how crowds of people at live music events ALL have their stupid smartphones up recording the same damn recording which they should be paying attention to and absorbing the experience and living in the moment?

Forget what people should do, look at what people actually do.

Affordability is a factor, but also one of several. Affordability, among other issues, certainly would lead some couples to decide to have fewer children than they otherwise might (1 instead of 2, or 2 instead of 3).

Besides affordability, more recent generations focusing more on career, quality of life, freedom, overall thrill- and experience-seeking, has led people to make lifestyle choices that do not involve children, as children can be a hindrance to some of those lifestyle choices. Because of those choices, many of these same people simply don't value children [of their own] as much and thus have fewer or none at all. Career aspirations, increasing wealth/income, and keeping a majority control over one's time and obligations has become more important than accepting the stresses and challenges of raising one's own family, even when considering the special kind of joy that also arises from pursuing that endeavor.

Adding onto that, say what you will about organized religions, but the increasing level of secularism is perhaps also a factor in leading to a declining birthrate, as most organized religions tend to "bake in" a kind of enthusiasm and social "nudging" to have more children.

This can 'sort of' be done thru loan assumption. But it is a provision that only some loans have. And it isn't tied to the borrower but to the asset. Example would be you were selling your house and a buyer wanted to 'assume' your mortgage. They could actually do that where they take over the remaining principal, a loan assumption provision would allow that. Granted, the buyer would still need to come up with the cash for the rest of the price of the home (selling price - remaining loan balance) and to do that, the buyer would either need to bring cash to the table or get a 2nd loan to make up for that difference.