Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tell HN: We (Causal) got acquired – thank you HN

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 90 posts

Re: Tell HN: We (Causal) got acquired – thank you HN

#71

Post by meiraleal »

orliesaurus wrote: post #65
romanhn wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't post ChatGPT-generated text on HN. You're very likely to be downvoted/flagged, which is what happened here. People here are capable of using ChatGPT themselves, and most of that text is not interesting in the HN sense. Separately, I think the answer was clear to most people - they did better than other well-paying alternatives (meaning it wasn't a poor outcome / waste of effort from individual perspectiv…

Oh I didn't know there was a rule about that - I was just trying to save people a click or two. Noted for the future!

There is no rule about that and your use of chatgpt in this case is useful and brought data to a different perspective.

It is fair to ask if they got a good money for it or just a nice job

Re: Tell HN: We (Causal) got acquired – thank you HN

#73

Post by refrigerator »

seagullriffic wrote: post #72

Excellent, well done. Looking forward to hearing a discussion about this on your podcast! Might you go chase some other startup ideas? Does this "validate" the career model of creating something new, for you? Or would you not do it again?

Thanks! Definitely keen to start something again eventually, but in no rush right now :)

Re: Tell HN: We (Causal) got acquired – thank you HN

#74

Post by tptacek »

meiraleal wrote: post #71
orliesaurus wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh I didn't know there was a rule about that - I was just trying to save people a click or two. Noted for the future!

There is no rule about that and your use of chatgpt in this case is useful and brought data to a different perspective. It is fair to ask if they got a good money for it or just a nice job

There certainly is a rule about it.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

Re: Tell HN: We (Causal) got acquired – thank you HN

#75

Post by meiraleal »

tptacek wrote: post #74
meiraleal wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no rule about that and your use of chatgpt in this case is useful and brought data to a different perspective. It is fair to ask if they got a good money for it or just a nice job

There certainly is a rule about it. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

That's not the same. OP used ChatGPT to improve an answer that didn't say much turning it into something tangible and that added value to the discussion.

Re: Tell HN: We (Causal) got acquired – thank you HN

#76

Post by pvg »

meiraleal wrote: post #75
tptacek wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There certainly is a rule about it. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

That's not the same. OP used ChatGPT to improve an answer that didn't say much turning it into something tangible and that added value to the discussion.

It's exactly the same - it's not human conversation and the poster couldn't even assess what they were posting.

Re: Tell HN: We (Causal) got acquired – thank you HN

#78

Post by orliesaurus »

pvg wrote: post #76
meiraleal wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not the same. OP used ChatGPT to improve an answer that didn't say much turning it into something tangible and that added value to the discussion.

It's exactly the same - it's not human conversation and the poster couldn't even assess what they were posting.

> the poster couldn't even assess what they were posting

Uhm disagree, I know what I was posting (doesn't seem it was against the rules either), I was trying to understand better the answer that OP had submitted as a reply to my first question.

It definitely helped me put it into a better perspective (i.e. no clue what an average salary at a large company looks like). That being said the answer to my question from the author still lacks enough details to make "total sense" in my mind - even after passing it through GPT.

Re: Tell HN: We (Causal) got acquired – thank you HN

#79

Post by edanm »

averageRoyalty wrote: post #49
refrigerator wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks! We didn’t have an end goal in mind from the beginning — we had the idea for the product and wanted to see if it had legs as a business, and then grow it and see where we could take it. From what I recall, I don’t think this kind of acquisition was on our radar in the early days — we expected the startup game to be much more binary (massive outcome or bust), and this was the standard narrative at the time. We’…

> We’re fortunate to have landed in a middle ground that more founders should be aware of earlier on (and I think awareness is increasing). You mean the area 97% of businesses who don't go bust operate? I think most business owners are well aware of it. For some reason though, startup founders live in a different reality.

You're comparing unlike things here.

97% of businesses are things like "open up another pizza place in the corner", "franchise a McDonald's", "open up a town hardware shop", etc. That's what being an entrepreneur means for much of the world.

Startups, at least the kind that are usually built in tech, and which VCs usually fund, are an entirely different thing. They are pursuing innovation, trying to build a new product that didn't exist before into a real business. The majority of failures are various forms of product-market fit failures - the product either doesn't fill a real need, or else can't be made into a viable business.

You can totally build the first kind of business, even in tech. (I should know, I've done it twice.) But it's important to remember that it is different, and not confuse the two.

Re: Tell HN: We (Causal) got acquired – thank you HN

#80

Post by tptacek »

orliesaurus wrote: post #78
pvg wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's exactly the same - it's not human conversation and the poster couldn't even assess what they were posting.

> the poster couldn't even assess what they were posting Uhm disagree, I know what I was posting (doesn't seem it was against the rules either), I was trying to understand better the answer that OP had submitted as a reply to my first question. It definitely helped me put it into a better perspective (i.e. no clue what an average salary at a large company looks like). That being said the answer to my question from th…

This thread is kind of going on and on, but for whatever it's worth, the general rule is "don't post generated comments". We're not the thread police, but you're going to find that comments that are significantly LLM-generated are going to get flagged to death. We're here for human conversation. Maybe next time, just suggest "here's a prompt I used that got a good GPT 4o response, go try it".
Post reply on HN