throwaway803453

I wasn't sure if my comment was in the spirit of HN given it's overly personal and is now totally irrelevant to the lithub post. But since you asked -- before the PD's conclusion I told myself I would just accept whatever they report. But doing that has now left me with the lifelong burden of falsely accusing two people of murder.

The people were desperately poor in-laws. He was becoming cash poor but was still home equity rich and often commented that if he missed too many remittances he would likely be killed. Poisoning was rumored to be a common way to accelerate the inheritance process in his native country. When this is about to happen, the rumors start but everyone is afraid to do anything. I heard the rumor from a desperate family member but who then ended the conversation with "please don't say anything" and another implying they will take revenge. The in-laws came for a quick visit, he soon became so ill he ended up in the hospital and died, and then they quickly left. I have law enforcement buddies that mentioned poisoning can be extremely difficult to detect and prove and no one in his country could tell me names of poisons that were useful to his doctors. His doctors could not explain why he was so sick, and the coroner mentioned some health problems he found that could have killed him but implied that this conclusion was not strong.

I wonder if you can discern what type of problem a person is working on based on their path. For example if you give a person two good solutions to a problem but they can only pick one, would they naturally pace back and forth ?

Somewhat related, about 10 years ago I was in a tragic situation where someone I loved would be murdered but I couldn't speak out because of possible retaliation against my family.

I found myself compulsively walking randomly in the city every night for several nights. I would walk half way to a random destination only to change directions in 30 minutes convinced I was headed the wrong way forgetting the previous destination and repeatedly heading part way to successive random destinations. I did this night after night convinced there was a place I needed to go but in retrospect they were completely arbitrary and there was no purpose. I recently read the book Crime and Punishment and there is a scene a bit like this which suggests this may be in our DNA. To share further, I eventually spoke out (at some point you have to pick your poison) and the person did die suddenly and unexpectedly. The NYPD coroner eventually ruled out foul play, but the suspects the suspects left the country immediately after his death so it wouldn't have mattered.

Had you plotted my path you would say that it was the walk of a person who is "lost", yet I knew the city perfectly. However it was accurate to say I was hopelessly lost.

Changing subjects to lighten things up, I would assume there would be a metaphor for walking in way that parallels what your brain is doing when it is searching for a solution but I can't think of a word. Contemplative walks are certainly not erratic and discontinuous as described above. They are smooth and differentiable like a gradient descent.

A tall bottle on a table is arguably obnoxious and unsightly. I just put mine on the floor if it is in line-of-sight of too many people especially indoors.

Beach city LA, so water quality isn't bad. As for context, he's a pathological right wing troll and we both have ADD and find mild periodic confrontation stimulating. Everyone I know mocks him for being an absurdist, but he has many friends because he's damn funny, helpful, and caring.

It was kind of a mike drop moment. Honestly, my buddy has associated hard-right and anti-left views as part of his identity. He doesn't wear a seat belt because he doesn't want the gov't telling him what to do. That type of extreme. But he's also smart, so I suspect sometimes he says things as a cry for help, the way an alcoholic will mock you for drinking just one beer because it reminds them that they have habits they can't break or have regretfully become part of their identity.

I got blind sided by an argument when visiting a friend recently because I carry a reusable water bottle with me whenever I leave home for more than a few hours whereas he brings throwaway water bottles. At one point he gestures to my bottled water and asked "does that make you feel good about yourself ?" implying I am virtue signaling.

I explained that I saw a documentary ~10 years ago where the claim was if you can do one thing for the environment, please stop purchasing bottled water. It seemed like an easy request, so why not.

I then rhetorically asked him if he "felt good" about himself because he doesn't just throw his trash out the car window, which is what we city kids (and adults) used to do in the early 80s. "No you don't do it and you don't think about it, right ? It's the same with my water bottle. I don't lecture anyone, and I honestly didn't think once about what he or others are doing."

Culture changes many times for the better. It's odd though how some people are the last to get the memo despite similar demographics.

From a mental health stand point I find this post-vaccine phase worse since there is no clear end. A new culture war among the vaccinated may also be starting.

For example, I have family members with children who are highly opinionated about what is safe to do now. My outdoor beach volleyball match without masks was "reckless" but their masked dinner party at a restaurant was "responsible". It's truly draining as you said and I no longer share photos of when I am having fun.

IIRC after entering your name, "How old are you ?" was the first question on YC's original application, even before asking what you are working on.

It was out in the open back then but perhaps it was removed because it is less relevant now. A 50 year old applicant today would likely had likely been hacking on a computer as young child and YC is getting older too so the culture differences are less significant today.

But if I had to guess you have a 10X better chance getting into YC as a 50+ with co-founders than as a 30 year old solo founder. I am always surprised any VC will fund a solo-founder.

Personally I had applied numerous times to YC as a solo-founder. But as soon as I had co-founders I was invited for an interview. I was 45 at the time and no one cared.

You'll be growing crops year round, indoors. So you could be miserable. Curious if they select for plant strains that give off less pollen.

Or it will just come from outside of Hollywood. La Casa De Papel (aka Money Heist) is so good I am probably going to cancel Netflix since it's taking away from my nightly reading time and affecting the quality of my sleep.

The YC credo is about building something people want and shipping your MVP ASAP.

What I see time and time again with teams and people prelaunch is a lack of a catalyst to ship their MVP. I've met many people who have an idea and their MVP is 95% complete. Then things stall and feature creep sets in for three reasons:

1) Your MVP will, by design, have technical debt. No one likes debt.

2) Releasing means a shift from being a dev/engineer to being a marketer and building the company that builds the product. And you do this while also working on your technical debt. If your sales stall, then you are stuck in "should I spend more money on time on marketing" hell.

3) Anyone who can build something people want and create an MVP has numerous alternatives for certain income.

So as much as I'd like to ship my MVP next month I procrastinate since I am also a consultant who bills at good hourly rate and I can just do that instead. Good isn't just the enemy of great. Good is also a great hedge against the time waste of building a business that is no fun to operate and isn't profitable which is why many MVPs never ship.

Edit: typos, clarity

That statement needs tuning then. It's doubtful you have a 529 for your neighbor's college fund or you are bankrupting yourself to pay someone else's medical bills. Did you buy a $2 coffee today ? $2 is what the average Venezuelan earns in a month.

That quote is often associated with Bill Gates in the context of running a charity. In that case it has merit. But on a personal level it makes no sense, at least literally.

One of the reasons I planed to put most of my money in an expensive home and paying cash is to protect against liability. I had always thought your entire home is protected against lawsuits, but according to the link below it is only between $300k-$600k in CA. Meaning if someone 100% owns their $1M primary residence in CA, a lawsuit could force them out of their home. Please tell me I am misunderstanding this.

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/2021-say-hello-to-californ...

And the elimination/ebay'ing of items that you realize you haven't touched or unpacked since your last move.

Arguably untouched junk in American households has better housing than most people in this world.

"The boards that make our hut were cut from somewhere". I had hoped that consumption of wood for construction is one of the best things we can do assuming the tree is mature and no longer growing and a new tree is planted in its place.

Unfortunately there is data that shows old trees are better carbon consumers than young trees which is surprising. I expected the carbon required for physical growth would be much higher than needed what is needed for its basal(?) metabolic rate once it is mature. But I missed the fact that most older trees are still growing.

https://www.pacificforest.org/ee-old-trees-store-more-carbon...

Too funny, I literally turned the last page of that book last night. It is essentially a meta study on past research regarding the influence of electric potentials and currents on regeneration and healing along with the potential dangers of non-ionizing EMF radiation. I felt like I was reading a book from the future despite most of the research being from the 1950-70's.

Repeating annoying phrases that casually dismiss suffering seem to be human nature. It likely irritated Voltaire so much he wrote the tragic novel Candide in 1759. In that book the phrase is "everything is for the best in this best of all possible worlds" is thoughtlessly repeated during times of unspeakable cruelty and horror.

At the very least when you design a new microprocessor you design and simulate it using software running on a computer. Then when that new processor releases, you build a computer with it and then you can simulate and design an even more powerful microprocessor. The tools and production equipment in the fab are also likely designed and partially simulated using CAD tools as well so there's an additional benefit there.

Many people would pass, including me and most of my friends, due to the environmental impact and radiation exposure.

It also seems like a dumb way to die if you aren't contributing to a mission in someway. It's cool to die as a researcher, explorer, or pioneer like Branson. But as a popcorn eater who can afford to overpay for a roller coaster ride ?

On second thought, if the marketing was good and I had kids, I admit I be tempted.

My understanding was Moore's law implied a form of doubling at at least every 24 months.

Otherwise why not just say {qualifier} exponential growth.

I have argued this point with my old married former union-employee relatives that see themselves as "poor". Combined they have a $6000/month pension. When I explain I will need to save $2M+ to achieve that income they suggest that I am just greedy/out-of-touch millionaire who should be giving more money away.

Moore's law happens when the output of the system can be used to improve the system that produced the original output. In other words some recursion is required. It also requires that there is an economic need for more output.

So yes if somehow putting engineers and labs in space allows us to iterate faster or spaceship designs then the first requirement is achieved. Then there's the question if the masses want to travel to space. Unlikely unless it just so happens to speed travel and reduce cost for getting from Earth point A to Earth point B.

We'll see.

What a bizarre article. Who cares if the author is now an old annoying egotistical crackpot. Lots of people don't age well but that has nothing to do with their past works.

Rich Dad Poor Dad changed many lives, including mine and many of my friends, for the better. It sold 32 million copies in more than 51 languages across more than 109 countries, been on the New York Times bestsellers list for over six years. That doesn't happen unless it has valuable ideas.

It seems like a disservice to the current generation to dismiss this book. That is unless the current generation is so financially smart that the ideas now seem pedestrian. But I see no indication that is true.

A readily available water source would also simplify setup of an auto-cleaning system.

There is a secondary benefit in that it influenced people like me to save, invest, and work very very hard to get that status. I invested in one YC startup after achieving it and that felt like a major personal win.

However, the financial goal posts were set 20+ years ago should have been periodically updated for inflation.

I think it boils down to bad faith, dishonest, or hypocritical conversations. Why explore that further especially if you previously set boundaries, explained the dishonesty or hypocrisy, and they still bring it up ?

[Edited: TMI]

After optimizing my diet, sleep, and exercise, I learned my mood and energy levels were always primarily related to two things:

1) Working hard but nothing to show for it. If I get stuck too long on a problem, I now work on a simpler problem or take a break. Otherwise I just wind-up depressed and tired.

2) Interactions with people. I am aware of when interactions with co-workers, family members, etc. turn from energizing to energy draining and then either end the interaction or ask them to avoid this topic in the future.

This definition is not the best since at the very least it missed that a Ponzi scheme lacks transparency and is fraudulent.

PG had one of the best definitions: "a rapid increase in buying based on the expectation of soon selling to a sucker willing to pay more". It's in an old Startup School video and I doubt I am getting his wording correct.

>>And bizarrely pricing has largely converged anyway.

If you are single with no kids and usually eat out, then yes. But is this still true if you are traveling with your family ? Just the ability to cook breakfast in an AirBnB seems like a huge money saver. It's likely why some AirBnB hosts claim that properties with more bedrooms have a much lower vacancy rate than smaller properties.