Vesting equity makes this pretty harmless. 4 year vest with a 1 year cliff gives you a year of dating even if you start working together before ever meeting, which of course is the most extreme absurd example.
This would seem to imply more of an employee relationship where only the stranger can get pushed out (not the existing founder get pushed out.) A good confounder relationship should hold all founders to equal account.
Outside money is helpful if you want to grow in a specific direction and want to do it fast to make sure you get there before competitors do.
It sounds like you have a nice thing going, there's no need to jump into the deep end if you don't have the ambitions to.
A lot of VCs talk about raising money as 'the big leagues', and the takeaway from that is: success is judged as performance against expected returns. Perform or get out.
If this doesn't sound like what you want, then don't take VC $. If you're ambitious and it sounds like an interesting challenge then maybe it's something to consider!
Hi HN! Maker here. I’ve been a too many tabs guy for as long as I’ve had internet access (even back when that meant too many windows on IE). I've tried a lot of approaches: chrome extensions (OneTab, TooManyTabs, Tree-style tabs); built my own extension (TabLasso); even written down links on paper (I know).
I had this realization that most of my tab sprees came from research I was doing into specific topics—stuff that was kind of like a background job I wanted to pause on and pick up later. So I'm building a browser specifically for that.
Your tabs are organized by project, treated like a todo list, and can get cut up into just the useful pieces and glued together into a kind of summary of your progress on looking into that topic so far.
We’re looking for people who have tried all the tools and want to get in on the ground floor. Excited to hear your feedback on our approach!
Totally get that workflow working for a lot of people, but not me.
I end up with thousands of bookmarks that I never revisit even though I know I saved them for a reason. Even if they're organized by the window, I don't have any context as to what I was thinking when I saved it (was I interested in the entire site, or just a piece?). After a certain point bookmarks and OneTab are just too noisey to have any value.
We've used amazon a lot for ordering seltzer in our offices, and it doesn't have the selection (1/10th of ours). There's also a pain about managing delivery times. Amazon is optimizing for 'real-time' delivery, but what I care about is not having to think about my seltzer and just have it be taken care of. Amazon fresh experience is _not_ this. We're looking to remove as much mental overhead as possible, by simply always having your flavors, having predictable delivery, and making getting what you a delightful experience.
Thanks, that's really good advice. We're super early here so the hour long window is kind of chosen for the beta.
I would love to talk to you if your open to sharing some of the things you learned on your project! If so reach out to george [at] stilllife [dot] studio
That essay argues that IQ isn’t a measure because it doesn’t predict life success, only lack of success.
That is nonsense equivalent to arguing height isn’t a measure because it doesn’t predict NBA success, only lack of success.
IQ seems to be one of the best psychological measures we have, and Mr Taleb himself verifies that — if it weren’t, it wouldn’t exclude so strongly at the low end.
If someone is short, they are very, very unlikely to join an NBA team. But if they're tall, you don't know much.
All this is saying is that if someone is missing a necessary ingredient to do something, they can't do it. If they have it, some other ingredient becomes limiting. Or noise drowns out any predictive signal.
It connects nicely with the threshold theory of IQ, basically if you're above some baseline, that's opens up certain possibilities for you. But having loads and loads of IQ doesn't help much.
This is probably a mechanic that works in many areas. Some test will exclude people very well, but not choose "the good ones" well at all.
That has nothing to do with a measure: whether or not IQ accurately measures intelligence is independent of whether it’s predictive of success.
We all know NBA success requires more than height, however, height is still a measurement — not of total value in a person (even in regards to just basketball), but still of a real and objective difference between people.
Similarly, IQ doesn’t predict success, but is measuring a real and objective difference between people. Mr Taleb seems to confuse “cant predict a multi-factor outcome alone” with “isn’t measuring anything objective”. Again, IQ isn’t a measure of a persons value (or success) — just of a genuine variance in people’s mental abilities.
Mr Taleb unfortunately tries to extend the point that there’s more to success than raw intelligence to some kind of misplaced attack on the notion of measuring intelligence. That argument is as nonsense as insisting I can’t measure height, because not every tall person plays in the NBA.
