It might not be the most crucial, but it likely has widespread voter support, and it makes it harder for merchants to take advantage of customers. No, it doesn't solve California's homeless problem, but it's a win for consumers.
This comment is a partial example of the fallacy of relative privation. It's only partial because usually when people make it, they go the extra mile to include the thing that they think is more important.
Electric aviation company | Remote - US | Contractor -> Full time
Large, fast-growing, public aviation company building an eVTOL that will be certified and go to market next year. We are looking for an experienced iOS/mobile designer to help build out v1 of the aerial ride sharing product. The position will be contract to start but we are open to converting to full-time if it is a good fit.
If you’re interested, please email me at the address in bio with your CV & portfolio.
Stealth - ex-Uber/Square/YC team | WFH REMOTE or LOS ANGELES, CA | Full-Time | React Web and Full Stack Developers
We are building a media-focused creator economy progressive web app with React on the front end, Rails on the backend. Experienced team from Uber, Square, Google, YC, and more. Backing from a large media giant. Please contact at the email in my bio.
File size aside, I can confidently say - United hands down has the best app of any major airline in the world. It's better than their website and often-times even better than calling customer service on their 1K (top loyalty status) line. Many ways to make it better, but if we're comparing it to airlines & hotels, it's extremely well done.
Interesting, I've found Delta's app to be usable (above average?). Sort of funny that a usable app is my above average rating but I've found Delta's app just doesn't get in the way. I'm looking forward to trying United.
I've found that true of other everyday things (eg, booking a session my local gym), and find it incredibly depressing. Not only have we devised a world where impersonal, digital communication is the way things get done, but we must also buy a smartphone to even start accessing it.
I find it a great step forward in society, for every Gym in the world to not need to staff someone to sit there and answer phone call questions around (what are your hours? can I book X for Y?). Those are done much faster with robots and lower our costs.
Those are done much better with a web site (for many purposes, a static website with no Javascript is sufficient!) than by downloading a gigantic possibly-insecure app.
You don't need someone sitting next to the phone the entire time to perform that service. Besides, you've swapped that perceived unpleasantness for another - some poor soul in a 3rd-world coding sweatshop has to scrape together some bloated mess of an app so we can enjoy our "hassle-free" gym sessions, etc.
You would prefer a capped note if you think you'll raise at lower caps. If you think you'll raise at a $10m post-money cap then a SAFE with a $20m cap is better than an MFN SAFE
Can you explain how it could be a bad deal for some - I'm struggling to understand what at all could be negative - this feels like 100% upside for the founders.
It's a bad deal if you have other willing investors. Let's say you exit YC and have a helpful angel (or many) who want to invest. Without the YC note, you may choose to let them invest $20-50k checks at a good deal, say (just example numbers) $12-15M post, before you raise a proper seed at $20M+ post. In that scenario, the YC note converts with the helpful angels.
In another scenario, let's say you get a term sheet for your seed at demo day, $3M @ $20M post from a firm that wants 15%. Then you add in another $1M from angels (5%) and the mandatory $375k from YC (1.8%) and you're at 21.8% dilution. Or you take $375k less and cut out angels you wanted on the cap table.
I've read this post probably 20 times in the last day or so (honestly) - and I'm still trying to puzzle through what the possible negative elements are.
I think the idea is that the VC is coming in at $20M valuation, but the angels are coming in at $12M valuation, and you want the angels money (for their connections/assistance) - but only want, say, $150K of their money at $12M valuation. But, if you accept their money at $12M, then you also have to accept YC @ $375K as well - which leads to greater dilution than you want.
- It's also "official", ie, from the actual Redux team (myself, Lenz Weber, Tim Dorr)
- RTK simplifies common Redux patterns, but tries to stay "typically Redux". It doesn't hide the fact that you're using Redux. Libraries like Easy-Peasy and Rematch add additional levels of abstraction, to the point that it doesn't even look like Redux any more. I can understand why that might be appealing to some folks, but I think it's too much abstraction.
Disclosure: "This study was funded in part via an unrestricted research grant from the Beef Checkoff, through the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association."
I thought you were kidding, but I checked, and sure enough at the bottom:
"This study was funded in part via an unrestricted research grant from the Beef Checkoff, through the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. The sponsor of the study had no role in the study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report."
Maybe not, but how likely is it that they'll continue funding more studies if you come back with results that don't support more beef consumption?
Sorry, don't mean to be overly cynical, but <gestures around at basically everything>.
If this were real science, it wouldn't matter because anyone could repro the results.
But almost all of this nutritional "science" is just people in white coats messing with statistics and sounding authoritative. Goes for the "meat is good" camp and the "meat is bad" camp.
(My personal belief is that only a very small amount of meat is good for your body, but having more meat is good for your brain.)
As the paper described, all they did was pull available data from other studies. That's about as low a barrier to repro as you could wish - you could probably do it yourself.
If you want to see what appears to be a training ground for beef industry propaganda, check out /r/AntiVegan on Reddit. The vitriol is overpowering. I simply quoted a contradictory statistic from a paper a mod posted themselves that supposedly showed that not eating meat is unhealthy, and got banned.
A far more believable source would be a university studying causes of depression. Literally anyone else not profiting off meat would be more believable though.
Universities are prone to fads and political correctness. Try publishing results that are unpopular in academic circles, and see how long your funding lasts.
Sure, it would be more believable if they did. But they won't.
