Range goes way up – electrification can turn a 10+ mile commute from something intense (where you need a shower when you arrive) into something manageable.
It allows bikes to be a substitute for far more things that you'd otherwise use a different mode of transportation for.
My understanding is this is precisely backwards: using BMI to gauge your own health is inaccurate, but using it to analyze populations is the intended purpose.
As the country gets more fit, and that fat turns into muscle, what happens to the BMI? It either gets higher or stays the same, right? Certainly a good measure to perpetuate a crisis.
In the meantime, I more regularly see the people whose BMI is highly correlated with their body fat percentage; and, one of those requires a scale and a number that doesn't change after your early 20s. The other one requires a tape measure, calipers or an immersion pool.
I think there's some "both sides are equal" aspects in your position that mischaracterize the reality as I understand it.
In 2016 Democrats thought manipulation / fake news (exactly the root problem in this article) was happening, and it appears it was. They recognized there is risk to systems and proposed to enhance election security based on the new (and proven) information that state actors were directly involved in trying to manipulate our election. I do not remember (I may be proven wrong), Democrats undermining the fidelity of the election itself, or alleging fraudulent votes, excepting one or two places where it was proven to happen (see the Dan McCready campaign).
My understanding is both parties now are roughly aligned with their longstanding positions in terms of how they view election security and relative occurrence of voter fraud and malfeasance. Comparing the 2016 positions on interference via fake news is apples and oranges, it is fundamentally a different subject – and the allegations of election interference were literally proven true by a justice system run by the Republican party.
First off, I'd like to thank you for responding thoughtfully and directly.
I'm not saying both are equal, I am saying the situation is ridiculous. I think you're about right in your assessment, though I do think each side has shifted its emphasis to whatever points were most convenient.
State actors trolled people on Facebook and Twitter and spent $3100 on Google AdWords - against approximately $3 billion total spent on the 2016 election season.
I've seen plenty of junior engineers who read a FP blog post, and start arguing about 'purity' and the need to refactor lots of code – without having any clue that pure functions are useful regardless of other coding paradigms / architectural decisions.
I'm very much in OOP-land when it comes to architecture at large, but a good portion of my code these days could be summarised as: using a 'classic' OO language to namespace pure functions.
Without much more detail than this, they don't sound like cofounders. If they're waiting until you launch to go 100%, then you're assuming all the risk right now.
Again take with a grain of salt, bc I have no context, but , if there's one you think is clearly the best, that you like working with them, get them to be a cofounder and make them go all in. They can do lots of manual work to validate the idea/product (ie manually do things you'd like your product to do). If there's noone you could see doing this, then their role is probably not going to grow that much when there is a 'product'.
Also: the product will never be done, and framing launch as a binary event doesn't help you (or your potential cofounders). It's all just a continuous spectrum of trying to cover as much scope/utility as possible for your users, and using a product to try to automate that. After 7 years, you'd be shocked how much stuff my sales cofounder does manually that we had framed as a 'required feature for launch'.
I'd make the argument that because there are low costs of switching (as has been mentioned elsewhere), these are scale effects (like in most industries), rather than network effects.
Why? I actually still have a 6S and I find the physical button feels mushy in comparison to the new solid state / haptic button. Is there a disadvantage I'm missing?
I had a 5S which has the first generation touch ID paired with a physical button, which I considered to be the best home button on any iPhone I'd owned. I've since switched to the 7 plus and now think the haptic/solid state button is superior. Having the whole bottom of the phone simulate a click feels really satisfying, and knowing that no physical hinge is involved gives me confidence that the effect won't deteriorate with time or use.
Just as moving from a physical keyboard to touchscreen reduces moving parts and therefore many points of failure, moving to a solid state home button eliminates a very common and critical point of failure.
Yes – every day. By most metrics, my startup is going great, but it's taken years of all-nighters, working weekends, and skipped vacations. I love what I'm doing, but I'm also cognizant of all the friends, relationships, family-time, and other experiences I'm not investing my time in as much as I should.
Whether things work out or not, I'll always wonder what the counterfactual was, all the unknown-unknowns I chose to miss out on.
Regardless of what you read, what you feel like you're missing out on, know everything comes with a sacrifice. My only advice would be to think carefully about what you choose to invest your time in.
Folsom Labs, San Francisco, Full Time Software Engineers (www.folsomlabs.com)
We make powerful design tools for Solar PV (think cloud-based AutoCAD with built in physics modeling). Our mission is to make these tools as easy to use as possible, which dramatically broadens the availability of solar. It's a unique place in the solar industry, new technologies desperately need software like ours to convince both banks and installers that they can have positive impact on energy production.
We launched to revenue in January, and have real traction and high growth, and we're still just a 4 person team, so there's a ton of opportunity. Everyday we get to deal with a range of problems that few startups get to offer – we have a modern web-stack, we need to use our cloud-clusters for the simulation half of the product, but also get to solve interesting physics/optimization problems on a regular basis (if that's your thing).
