81–90 of 280 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you pull a string that has the length of 1au, would it take 8 minutes for the other side to react to the tug, or would it move as soon as you pull the string?
It would take 1 au / speed of sound in string. The 8 minutes comes from the (much faster) speed of light. Based on some googling it seems it would take roughly 1.8 years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would take 1 au / speed of sound in string. The 8 minutes comes from the (much faster) speed of light. Based on some googling it seems it would take roughly 1.8 years.
What if the string is completely non-elastic?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a general rule that will serve everyone well on hacker news throughout their lives: Don't ever expect someone who has gotten their hands on your money to voluntarily close up shop and give it back :p They'll take it to the casino and bet it all on black, or siphon it off somewhere else before that ever happens...because all your money gone and them giving it back to you is the same thing to the person who no longe…
> Don't ever expect someone who has gotten their hands on your money to voluntarily close up shop and give it back :p Maybe you shouldn't expect it, but I have seen a start-up or two that failed and that did exactly that. And start-ups that fail have a whole pile of clauses triggered in the various shareholder agreements that count towards a 'liquidation event'. That's what liq-prefs are for and the immediate consequ…
But just don't expect it...
I'm usually a huge fan of pg, but in his essay about founders, there was one section which I wasn't very comfortable with: http://www.paulgraham.com/founders.html Specifically, when he talks about naughtiness, he says: Morally, they care about getting the big questions right, but not about observing proprieties. That's why I'd use the word naughty rather than evil. They delight in breaking rules, but not rules that m…
Evidence A: How Paul defended shady AirBnB tactics here on hackernews.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think Tharanos is a scam and misreported its results and capabilities. That said, your "litmus test" is dangerous and should not be used. If you had talked to 100 cab drivers about Uber, how many would have said it's a viable idea? Uber is actually WAY less viable than Theranos, because there are legal frameworks that made it literally illegal. Meanwhile Theranos is in a high-profit part of the medical industry, th…
Theranos was not viable because it was a scam and people in the industry thought exactly that. Unless you believe taxi drivers are all arguing that Uber doesn't actually provide rides, I don't think your argument makes sense.
This person wrote:
>There seems to be this bravado among founders who believe they're sticking it to all the people who say something's amiss
which is a completely unfair generalization and hurts all founders, of all companies.
You raise irrelevant points. But to answer you, yes, there was a time in the past when taxi drivers would have argued that Uber is a scam, yes. I did a date-range Google search, and look at this:
http://observer.com/2012/10/uber-lawsuit-chicago-taxi-limous...
"Uber Sued for Consumer Fraud and Unlawful Practices by Chicago Taxi and Limo Companies". (2012)
Consumer fraud means scam.
So, please, jacalata, I would like you to say:
-> "All right, Taxi cab companies did accuse Uber of being a scam, i.e. of consumer fraud, in 2012. The only difference between this an Theranos is that Uber was real and Theranos is not real."
I want to hear you say this, because of the part of the comment that I quoted, stating "There seems to be this bravado among founders who believe they're sticking it to all the people who say something's amiss".
I'd love for you to agree that that signal or litmus test is irrelevant, and the only thing that matters is whether it's actually a scam.
Theranos was actually a scam - it didn't really do what it claimed at all, for which it is under criminal (criminal!) investigation. It has nothing, zip, zero, zilch, to do with Silicon Valley or founders, or bravado, or what the industry insiders were saying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Don't ever expect someone who has gotten their hands on your money to voluntarily close up shop and give it back :p Maybe you shouldn't expect it, but I have seen a start-up or two that failed and that did exactly that. And start-ups that fail have a whole pile of clauses triggered in the various shareholder agreements that count towards a 'liquidation event'. That's what liq-prefs are for and the immediate consequ…
Yep. There's always some events that restore faith in humanity and make you go "wow, I'll remember that/them, full respect/kudos". But just don't expect it...
On the other hand, if you're scamming consumers of course it is only a very small step to scam investors (and easier to get away with).
I've talked to over 100 hematologists. This business, didn't pass a basic litmus test of objective criticism from people who work in the space. There seems to be this bravado among founders who believe they're sticking it to all the people who say something's amiss. I think if there's an elephant in the room though, it probably should be assassinated with a huge body of transparent evidence.
I've talked to over 100 hematologists. This business, didn't pass a basic litmus test of objective criticism from people who work in the space. There seems to be this bravado among founders who believe they're sticking it to all the people who say something's amiss. I think if there's an elephant in the room though, it probably should be assassinated with a huge body of transparent evidence.
I've talked to over 100 hematologists. This business, didn't pass a basic litmus test of objective criticism from people who work in the space. There seems to be this bravado among founders who believe they're sticking it to all the people who say something's amiss. I think if there's an elephant in the room though, it probably should be assassinated with a huge body of transparent evidence.
To be fair, that is how innovation occurs. There are many examples of "ridiculous" ideas that ended being wildly successful. Where would Elon Musk be if he listened to all of the incumbents who said that his ideas would never work? Obviously, the putative innovators massively failed in this case, but I don't think that the outcome proves that their original idea was fatally flawed, or at least that it wasn't worth at…
Tesla built a very expensive sports-car, before they advanced towards cheaper products for the masses.
I've talked to over 100 hematologists. This business, didn't pass a basic litmus test of objective criticism from people who work in the space. There seems to be this bravado among founders who believe they're sticking it to all the people who say something's amiss. I think if there's an elephant in the room though, it probably should be assassinated with a huge body of transparent evidence.
To be fair, that is how innovation occurs. There are many examples of "ridiculous" ideas that ended being wildly successful. Where would Elon Musk be if he listened to all of the incumbents who said that his ideas would never work? Obviously, the putative innovators massively failed in this case, but I don't think that the outcome proves that their original idea was fatally flawed, or at least that it wasn't worth at…