After the end of the startup era

Post by EGreg » Mon, Oct 23, 2017, 5:51 PM UTC

tertius wrote: post #287

taysic wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What kind of bias? I copy pasted a cluster of lines from that page, but the sources themselves are well documented, mainly from the gov itself. Anyway here's another source that shows that meat consumption has dramatically increased since the 1920s, though that wasn't my central point: http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/06/27/155527365/vis...

Example: I want to show that there is a lot more murder today than before because of guns. I pick one year (a far edge of the bell curve type of year) to compare to today where there was the least amount of murders and compare it to day. Without showing an average or showing even a distribution bias should be expected. There is very little reason for picking a single year to these types of arguments and it is too oft…

Post by reitanqild » Mon, Oct 23, 2017, 6:35 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #276

Roritharr wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the ONE paid Android App that i have been using for 5 years now. The only other paid "App" i use is Action Launcher 2 (3 didn't click for me).

Happy Tasker user here. Well worth the little money I paid for it.

Post by graycat » Mon, Oct 23, 2017, 7:43 PM UTC

DangleWaggle wrote: post #294

graycat wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Statistical hypothesis tests: Commonly calculations to predict something have two ways to be wrong (A) predict it will happen when it doesn't and (B) predict it won't happen when it does. Then in the context of a statistical hypothesis test, get to address the probabilities of A and B and how to adjust the test to get the combination of A, B like best or get a better test that will give better combinations. If have e…

Can you point me to some paper I might read? If it's not too much trouble. I'm CS a grad student and sometimes it's hard to filter out the hype and find promising but underrated ideas among all the noise.

Post by RepressedEmu » Mon, Oct 23, 2017, 8:40 PM UTC

KGIII wrote: post #195

freehunter wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah this is another example of how SV exists in a bubble and can't see the broader world. Today's graduates are more likely to work for Zuckerberg than to follow him, as were yesterday's, as were the day before's and so on. It only seems like everyone is a founder because that's how it was in SV. It only seems like every stopped creating startups because that's how it is in SV. But like everything else in the world,…

I see other 'startups' that I think are missed by the SV folks. They aren't tech, but may use tech in their startup. I see quite a few of them. They are people starting their own business. A friend borrowed some money to start a business where he drives a remote control vehicle down pipes to examine them from the inside. The space didn't have much 'local' competition and he was able to spot that, take advantage of it…

Post by erikb » Tue, Oct 24, 2017, 8:25 AM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #290

erikb wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well who means what is really hard to discuss at this point. The article's author wants to point out that the hardware part must be so cheap that you can't make any profit in that area any more. But you still need to get it right, otherwise you can't sell anything. Komali doesn't disagree with that point, but adds another. That most of IoT is actually not in the consumer area but in the industry area where people don…

What I mean by physical part being the harder here is that it's much slower and more expensive to iterate on. You can make a lot of changes to software within a single day, for free (sans programmer time), and deploy them to all your customers. With physical items, you usually need to fab a new version for each significant change to test it, which is a time-consuming and expensive process. This is not something elect…