unusualmonkey

I wouldn't be surprised if reflection usage starts diminishing, with source generators solving a number of use-cases while maintaining AOT.

> The point they're making is that fewer than 30% of monkeys would still be positive after so many years if it were random chance

I'm not sure that's the argument being made, but if so, it's a terrible argument.

I'll let the statisticians figure out of randomly ~50% should beat index or not.

A blind monkey throwing darts will beat the S&P 500 some of the time.

The problem isn't that it's impossible to beat the S&P 500 (it's actually trivial), the problem is it's hard to predict which portfolio will outperform the S&P 500.

Bitcoin claims to be a great store of value, but is terrible at it.

Seriously look at the last 10 year chart of Bitcoin vs USD (or if you want purchasing power) - its far, far too volatile to be a store of value.

AI is the tide. The sand forts are the 'guardrails'.

Saying that 'Unions work' in this context seems premature.

That seems to beg the question.

Maybe YC isn't investing in the right founders, and that's why it has so many AI startups.

Because low quality games devalue the brand.

It's often easy to guess which engine a game is made on, because they tend to share certain elements (UI, rendering techniques etc).

If your engine is associated with poor quality games, than high value games may decide to use a different engine.

None of that prevents aquisitions.

Companies would just be bought by wealth induviduals (or trusts, or whatever) as opposed to companies, and copyright/ip would just stay unde the original legal entity and licensed out.

Does unity want to support games where the vast majority uninstall it within a few minuites?

Seems like having less of those games on Unity might improve Unity's brand.

'near-verbatim' is the key.

Though it'd be hard to copyright any code small enough to fit on a flash card.

Humans aren't required to use clean room design. Using copyrighted materials as inspiration/reference is not uncommon or illegal.

What makes you think that 'idealism' is what produces unicorns? What makes you think startups are about 'dreamers who find it difficult to subsist in a stifling world'?

I feel like you misunderstand startups. Startups aren't machines designed to let engineers do whatever they want. Startups are businesses that attempt to find and exploit oppertunities in the market. Since technology is new, and poorly adopted in many indistries, it tends to be used to do this.

Or to flip it around - you're entirely welcome to spend as much time as you'd like building 'idealistic' software that challenges the 'status quo'. Nothing is going to 'stifle' that.

However, if you want other people to spend thier time and thier resources supporting and helping you, then you need to find a way to convince them. Startups are one way to do that, but businesses are full of compromise and you may not find it suits the idealism you desire.

I don't expose SQL to the client because my client apps don't have good SQL support, my database server doesn't scale connections well and it would take effort to properly lock down the SQL permissions.

That said, there are uses cases where this might be a good pattern - e.g. limited distribution internal tooling.

Direct access to SQL is a great example of something that is not an antipattern. It's just one approach of many, with strengths and weaknesses.

In my use-case adding new features and support is the majority of eng work. We find Hasura is valuable here in reducing the cost of doing so - especially compared to traditional REST implementations.

> they expose the data model and copy it as-is in GraphQL.

This isn't inherently an anti-pattern.

> GraphQL server is a special case of the BFF pattern, and the whole purpose here is to decouple FE from the underlying data model on the BE, and let both to iterate faster without blocking each other.

A) Says who? B) Why do we have to follow that specific dogma?

I doesn't appear to me that YC's mission has anything to do with technological advancement (it's not mentioned here for example: https://www.ycombinator.com/principles).

Depends how you use it. We use Hasura, and find this massively decreases the cost of making production ready API's vs traditional REST development.

Why is this an anti-pattern?

Even in this reduced claim, you haven't established this was a frivolous decision or due to 'taking business less serious'.

You've not established that has anything to do with titles. Nor have you established killing lidar was a bad idea, or puts people's lives in danger.

Remember that hype isn't the same as substance.

Can you prove any connection between the two?

Sounds like this would be a good system to have a bunch of idealistic developers work on pet tech projects.

This doesn't sounds like a goopd system to encourage developers to work on business problems - which are often boring and require painful work such as talking to people.

I moved to Vegas, both cities have a great assortment of amazing foods.

> Deserts are far from people

So... you've not heard of LA or Arizona or Nevada etc?

Let's say your correct and the founders didn't know ebay could scale (even though this was during dotcom bubble and raised millions of dollars in investment) so what?

That doesn't mean it's not possible or that a savvy entrepreneur shouldn't estimate market size today.

The flying car example you give is correct. Yes, I fully agree that a flying car (at right price point and specs) would have a huge TAM. That doesn't make it inherently investible (though I nite a number of companies have received investment in this space). There is a huge difference between a huge TAM is desirable, maybe even necessary and a huge TAM is all you need. You seem to think people are arguing for the latter, when they are arguing the former.

I fully agree that the educational software space maybe huge. As such building an app to capture a portion of that might well be worth doing! I think you just demonstrated the power of thinking in terms of TAM - while X doesn't look huge on the surface, it's actually just the first steps to Y which is.

I have to disagree. An auction website that everyone in America can use? A marketplace for small crafts that is nation wide? A social network that connects a large creative community and show cases brands and products?

It's not hard to imagine any of these having huge TAM's.

On the flip side, there are tons of ideas that just don't have the market size - an app that helps students memorize the latin numeral system is unlikely to have a large market.

I agree it's not easy to predict if a startup will succeed - but that's different from seeing if there is a market worth going after.

The flip side of this is that if your idea is not able to scale... it might not be worth doing.

Let's say the market of your idea is $100M/year, and in a best case scenario you can get $10M/year... that might not be a lot, especially if you consider all the costs and risks of business.

Worse, is that the smaller the market, likely the harder the business to run. You end up spending more resources, to gain less customers.

There's a lot of value in trying to understand market size, before in eating time and effort into a venture - regardless of venture capital.

So if increasing healthcare expenses allow them to earn more profits, then why do you think having capped profits means that insurance companies are 'not the problem'?

Insurance companies are incentivised, under law, to have the highest healthcare expenses possible.

> It's enjoyable to blame insurance companies, but the reality is their profits are capped by law - they are not the problem.

What a delightfully naive view.

Answer me two simple questions:

1) How are insurance companies profits capped?

2) How does increasing or decreasing costs affect thier allowable profits?

> But people watch 720p content all the time!

1) People don't tend to watch 720p content on large FOV displays.

For example, 720p on my phone is fine, because it takes up less FOV than a theater.

2) Content can be upscaled, picels cannot.

I'm sorry, but that's kinda of nonsense.

You can build a fairly successful startup with little to no engineering.

Sure, engineers are usually pretty important (they're great at automating tasks to improve efficeincy)... but so are many other roles.