jstandard

Non-hardware person here. How does the D1 compare to Cerebras WSE-2 wafer chip with 2.6 trillion transistors?

The WSE2 is much larger obviously, but I would also think it can result in a large performance boost given everything is on a single chip.

I call it "disruption management". A strong assistant knows your priorities, often times better than you when you're being bombarded. They help manage the firehose of requests, logistics, details, and information to keep you focused on what's important.

I appreciate what Tim has done and continues to accomplish to raise the profile and acceptance of startups as a viable career choice in Japan.

I've first-hand experience with the many challenges of startups in Japan. Finding talent who understand how startups are different. Convincing larger partners you're not simply another "supplier" they can grind margin out of. Explaining to potential investors the tradeoffs of quality, speed, and confirming product fit.

Educational platforms like what Tim has built through podcasting are needed to help close these gaps.

Thanks to Tim for the insightful post on "how the sausage was made" and looking forward to seeing good things coming out of Tepco's innovation platform.

I've worked on "Bring Your Own Device" concepts together with Honda.[1] There are plenty of wins for consumers in this type of setup.

Automakers have taken notice that people are using their phones for an increasing share of infotainment functions.

The tough, time-consuming parts are working through the supply chain to build out the connectivity and "happy coexistence" of phone and car. Also, I've yet to find a UX which blends physical, voice, and touchscreen controls while accounting for their strengths, weaknesses, and learnability. Tesla included.

1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnMwI6SGAOg

A friend of mine is the head painter at Chilton San Carlos. He said the volume there currently is absolutely insane as the Model 3 has ramped.

They are swimming in wrecked or poorly put together Model S/3s.

His accounts match the tone of the article, though Chilton experiences it to a lesser extent since they're so close to the Tesla mothership.

I spent my past life at a fund of funds and partially agree.

In general though, hedge funds are more likely to be up to some strange or "non-traditional" activities.

At times, our notes about fund manager visits and due diligence read more like the investment version of National Enquirer. Private investigators. Massive power struggles. Odd characters.

And only partially tongue-in-cheek, there's always https://village-us.albourne.com/village/home who organized the infamous Hedge Stock: https://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/09/business/09hedge.html

Where can I find information about the potential requirement for evacuation within a 150+ mile radius? I didn't downvote, just interested in learning more.

What is your criteria for size of fish? Enron's market cap was $60 Billion.

I see your point. The admonishment to Sahil at the end to "stop using" the term "lifestyle business" does seem to miss Sahil's self-awareness of the internal conflict between knowing about the misuse of the term and yet still allowing it to affect him at one point in time.

It's refreshing to see this perspective from founders. It's a story not often told and does well to characterize the grinding rollercoaster of hard decisions you won't easily find in the sea of "A-co raised $40mm!" press releases.

Agree the essay was a great read. I didn't see anything to suggest the OP missed that fact so much as had a reaction to a specific part of the essay and wished to discuss it.

Being a part of the SV startup ecosystem myself, I also see the term "lifestyle business" used as a soft-perjorative for "not ambitious enough".

It's not just due to the olympics.

There have been calls to move the fish market out of Tsukiji[1] for close to a decade at least. Advocates for the move have concerns about the aging facility and desire to re-purpose high-value real-estate.

The olympics are just the impetus that finally pushed it through. I agree about the market being an iconic facility and I have good memories there myself. Hopefully the new one will be similarly accessible to tourists and an upgrade for wholesalers.

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20121018042745/https://www.japan...

Thanks, the overall explanation makes sense now.

> The technology 23andMe uses is wrong about 1/10,000 times

Is 23andMe's tech considered state-of-the-art? I'm assuming there are ways to reduce both the false positive and false negative rate and I'm curious how other labs/tech stack up against these rates.

Thanks, this is fascinating.

How is error rate being defined in this case?

I took your explanation to mean: Cancer is common, so the genetic blueprint for Cancer risk factors should also be common. We have a higher number of samples to verify against which increases the detection accuracy.

For less common diseases, we have a smaller pool to verify against, so our blueprint is less accurate. Lower detection accuracy.

Can you clarify a bit?

It sounds like his doctor is quoting this study, which does indeed suggest a 40% false positive rate: https://www.nature.com/articles/gim201838

Those 2 tracks are typically disentangled. I encourage you to check out MBA curriculum.

Like most degree programs, there's a core set of business classes and a variety of electives allowing you to specialize[1].

[1] Example: https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/programs/mba/academic-experienc...

As a counterpoint, Japanese people generally eat almost the inverse of the keto diet (high-carb, low-fat[1]) and have the longest life expectancy on the planet.

It's just not as simple as "this diet" vs. "that diet".

[1] https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/japan-healthiest-people... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expe...

Tough problem to solve upstream, particularly in a "first-to-publish" news environment.

Better fact-checking tools in the hands of the publisher is critical here. It's ultimately on the them to decide if it passes the smell test.

I'll give publishers the benefit of the doubt that they at least attempt to corroborate anonymous tips with other sources. Perhaps some more accessible forms of anonymous expert networks with a trust/reputation system built-in can help, though the cynic in me sees how easily platforms like that can be manipulated.

Harsher consequences for publishing false news is a slippery slope. It's necessary at a certain level, but quickly runs up a slippery slope that can end up with tightly state-controlled media like in other countries.

> I don't care about marketing and branding, and focus only on the product itself.

That's where I find your framework breaks down. You can't ignore marketing and branding. Apple, Tesla, countless companies would be nothing without strong marketing and branding.

A product is nothing if it doesn't reach consumers. A similar point was made upthread that pricing de facto segments your market. You can set the price to whatever you think is best. If you aren't reaching the right people or have trust issues with your brand, ex. a new, untrusted product, then no one will buy your product no matter how many features it has.

How do you determine real value and how is your determination of real value the correct one?

Particularly in the context of the article, where the author is advocating for startups to set the real value of their products before launch.

I disagree with the Apple example in the sense that Apple typically launches products in burgeoning or semi-established markets. They have comparables to base their initial price range on and one of the world's strongest, high-end brands which typically targets the mid-higher end of the market.

Marketing and branding play a huge part of a product's success and ability to set prices. What is the real value of a good brand?

This is why it's tough for me to take the bulk of the article seriously. In theory everything mentioned is great. In practice, the world, customers, and startups typically don't yield enough information to do "Pricing before product" beyond anything more than a rough stab.

"Pay attention to price early" rings true. Everything else in the article seemed very anecdotal or cherry-picked.

This is what makes case studies about product success so difficult. With so many factors involved, any bold proclamation like "Price before product" is bound to have enough prominent counterexamples to render it useless in application.

Studies like this always remind me of Jim Collins' "Good to Great" controversy where several of the heralded companies went bankrupt a few years after the book was published.

Setting a good price before releasing a product is a lot easier said than done. Particularly for startup products which may not have great reference points. People are also generally not that good at figuring out what they're willing to pay for something.

I take "Price before product" as simply a catchy reminder to "think about price" as part of the long list of product requirements.

Agreed. "Compensation-driven thinking" may not be the best choice of words. Money is always a touchy subject.

I read parent's comment to be more about highlighting the expectations mismatch that occurs sometimes when candidates aren't willing to make compromises and then blame the startup for being "too stingy".

I've seen this mismatch occur on both sides of the table. Startups have a harder time hiring due to as they need to seek people willing to forgo direct compensation in exchange for these harder-to-value benefits. Startups need to stay self-aware they'll have a harder time hiring since the candidate pool is smaller.

Candidates applying to startups also need to temper their salary expectations. If you want to join a startup, especially pre-Series C, and you're not willing to compromise on direct compensation, then prepare for a harder time. The employer pool is much smaller and you're not likely to get the most out of working at a startup if salary is a top priority.

This isn't a fair assessment.

Startups can't pay BigCo wages because they don't have the money to. They have to leverage other, harder-to-value benefits which BigCo generally can't offer.

Increased responsibility, fewer "rules" on how to execute, more tightly focused mission are a few.

Naturally this differs company to company and there are always bad actors.

The compensation equation works out differently for each individual. Not everyone should work at a startup.

Not much content here, just an anecdote. "Don't over-parent"

In particular, there wasn't any evidence supporting the implications by the title that Lawnmower Parents are a new, rising phenomenon.

I think we're talking past each other a bit.

I responded to someone drawing similarities between Cambridge Analytica and Elon Musk's joint toke, claiming both were examples of "stupid media freakouts" which caused a drop in the stock price of their respective companies.

I think those 2 media events are very different from each other and have very different consequences for their respective companies. I might be proven wrong though if Musk is brought to task in front of a senate committee for his pot-smoking ways.

I agree with you that Trump's election may have made it more likely that Cambridge Analytica became a big deal in the public eye. There's more controversy to fuel media frenzy if the person who got elected is seen to have unjustly ascended the throne.

I don't think it was about CA capabilities per se, but the privacy blowback which followed.

The issue became mainstream and gave rise to the "Delete Facebook" movement which regular folks as well as celebrities[1] piled onto. It's fair to discuss the faddish nature of the #delete movements, but I don't see any positive angle in it for FB.

It also forced FB to overhaul their platform, most notably applying larger restrictions[2] to the amount of data available via APIs. This wasn't grandstanding, it cut revenue streams for many advertising and data companies. I'm not sure this had a direct effect on FB's revenue, but indirectly it makes FB less attractive as a platform for hyper-targeted advertising. This can eventually lead to a lower ROI on FB ads vs. other channels and thus, lower share of a marketing budget.

[1] https://variety.com/2018/digital/news/will-ferrell-delete-fa...

[2] https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/04/facebook-instagram-api-shu...

Something you might not have considered are the brand value and personal network aspects of an MBA. They're tremendously helpful to gain audiences or advice you might have a harder time accessing as an early stage entrepreneur.

You may also be surprised with the changes many MBA programs have made toward entrepreneurship. There are now incubators, cross-disciplinary product launch classes, and school affiliated venture funds.

I don't see Cambridge Analytica as a "stupid media freak out", it exposed a concerning and far reaching privacy issue with the Facebook platform.

Concerns about Tesla's solvency have been building for months. The departure of several high-level executives is a big concern and what moved markets. It might signal that people are jumping ship.

They provide endless _new_ content. I still don't see how the kids of today aren't learning social skills through observing their parents because mobile devices are sucking their attention away.

My point is that the nature of what kids do at parties hasn't changed in any significant way to support your original claim that there are "so many basic things we just don't learn how to do anymore".

Interesting, I've generally had the exact opposite occur for me, though it depends on narrator and context.

I typically listen while driving. Anything past 1.25x was an illusion of productivity trap. I could hear the words and understand the concepts, but there wasn't any time to digest what I'd heard.

I still don't see this as a new phenomenon. Before Android phones there were Game Gears. Before those we had Tiger Electronics handhelds. Before those we had comic books.

The only major thing that seems to have changed are the names of the distractions.