> When covid-19 first struck, companies furloughed staff. That was followed by a hiring spree as firms, particularly in tech, raced to meet demand for e-commerce and digital services.
Laying off managers seems like just another stretch of the rubber band. Companies are just bouncing back and forth reacting to new stimuli.
Indeed. And even among those who do drink, many don't seem to understand very well how widely variable tolerance can be between people. Even someone who only drinks occassionally can still have a much higher tolerance than someone else. Where two drinks might make somebody tipsy or even drunk, to another person they might barely even feel it.
That's quite a bit of alcohol to be drinking, but that alone does not make it a "problem". Ill-advised? Sure. But whether it's a "problem" depends on other factors - for example there's a big difference between drinking a can of <5% ABV beer and >9% ABV beer per inning. Drinking too much alcohol one time does not a problem make.
Anyone who can drink a beer per inning is not doing it as a one time thing. If you drink infrequently, you won't be capable of doing this and remaining in a capacity becoming of public places with children around
To be fair, OP didn't say anything about being at the game. Could be at home.
9x 4% 12.5oz beers in 3 hours is quite a lot, but it's definitely something that could be accomplished without the person necessarily having a problem. I know plenty of people who are not alcoholics but have stories of one-off nights like that with friends.
Definitely don't do this in a public, child-friendly venu though. That would be grossly irresponsible.
A lot of HNers are quite puritanical about alcohol and think it cannot ever be enjoyed responsibly, and that anyone who has ever overdone it a bit has a serious problem.
As you and others have said, this is maybe a bit much to have over 3 hours, but doesn't necessarily mean anything on its own. This is roughly six 500ml beers (plus one half), at a rate of one beer every 30 minutes. The bigger issue would be fetching the beer and going to the toilet - you'd be up and down constantly.
> the term has been described in academic research to mean consuming five or more standard drinks (male), or four or more drinks (female),[12] over a two-hour period.
> Drinking too much alcohol one time does not a problem make
When I was in college, a lot of people would define alcoholism in their heads so that they didn't call themselves alcoholics, when in fact they were exhibiting textbook alcoholism. (Not that I have a perfect past myself.)
Needless to say, "a beer an inning" isn't the kind of behavior that I will publicly glorify; nor will I try to handwave it away as "not a problem."
A single session of binge drinking does not an alcoholic make. An "alcoholic" is defined by their regular abuse of alcohol, not a single instance of binge drinking.
Binge drinking can obviously be a symptom of alcoholism, but IMO it's not appropriate to declare people you don't know are alcoholics based on a comment about an theoretical instance of binge drinking.
Even if you play one-beer-per-inning only 1 in 20 games (5% of the time) and only when watching your team, that’s more than once a month for the six month regular season.
Ok, and if you did it in 20/20 games it would be a huge problem (probably life-threatening) and if you did it in 0/20 games, it wouldn't be a problem at all.
A one time nine beers game would not normally be constructed as “one beer per inning.”
Because one-beer-per-inning is a drinking game that involves an intent to drink nine beers…and because beer sales typically cut off at the seventh inning, one -beer-per-inning requires buying multiple beers at a time, so it is unlikely to happen accidentally.
But to be clear, if you’re young nine beers probably won’t kill you (particularly if you train) and can youthful folly. But at 47 or 55 or 60 it is another story…not one that is usually a happy story.
It's a lot, but not egregiously so especially when you consider it's spread over 3 hours. That's 3 beers an hour for 3 hours...if you're big (like over 200lb) you're going to be drunk but certainly upright. If you're smaller, well, results may vary.
Maybe it is my Wisconsin upbringing, but three beers an hour is not even a notable level of intake. Moving at a good clip, sure, but in no way a record setting kind of ordeal.
There are Power Hours which is a shot of beer every minute. Depending on the cleanliness of the pour, available glasses, you are looking at 5-7 beers in an hour.
Nice work! I use Claude for task like this with a simple prompt. I’m not a lawyer so I’m certain my current process is risky.
I think your site needs to call out that problem more clearly. The two pains you solve for me:
- saving money on a lawyer for first pass / basic contracts
- Reducing risk of my current “vibe red lining”
I also think you need establish your credibility on the site. My first thought was “did some kid vibe code this? Or is this someone with an actual JD.”
Thanks so much for the thoughtful feedback this is super helpful You’re exactly right: a lot of users are doing “vibe redlining” with AI tools, which saves time but definitely adds risk. I’ll make sure the site messaging calls that out more directly that ContractAnalize helps people save money on lawyers and reduce risk by offering a more reliable first pass.
Great point too about credibility. I’m planning to add a clear About section to highlight the team’s background and experience in both law and AI so visitors know this isn’t just a hobby project but built with real legal and product expertise behind it.
Appreciate you taking the time to share this it’s exactly the kind of feedback that helps make the product stronger.
I would use it for locally hosted RAG or whatever tech has supplanted it instead of paying API fees. We have ~20TB of documents that occasionally need to be scanned and chatted with and $4,000 one time (+ electricity) is chump change compared to the annual costs we would otherwise be looking at.
Though the adage “this is the worst it’ll ever be” is parroted daily by AI cultists, the fact is it’s still yet to be proven that currently available LLMs can be made cost effective. For now every ai company is lighting tens of billions of dollars on fire every year and hoping better algorithms, hardware, and user lock in will ensure profits eventually. If this doesn’t happen, they will design more and more “features” in the LLM to monetize it - shopping, ads, sponsored replies, who knows? It may get really awful. And these companies will have so much of our data and eventually the need to make profits will lead them to sell that data and just generally try to extract as much out of us as they can.
This is why in the long run I believe we all should aspire to do LLM inference locally. But unfortunately we just are not anywhere close to par with the SoTA cloud models available. Something like DGX spark would be a decent step in this direction, but this platform appears to mostly be for prototyping / training models meant to eventually be run on data center nvidia hardware.
Personally I think I will probably spec out an M5 max/ultra Mac Studio once that’s a thing, and start trying to do this more seriously. The tools are getting better every day and “this is the worst it’ll ever be” is much more applicable to locally run models.
Maybe I’m just clueless, but why is this necessary? Are there really that many products using their own models? All the products I see just use openAI and anthropic APIs.
For the same reasons I think it’s crap “AI will replace software engineers” I think “vibe coding lets anyone be a programmer” is a massive simplification.
When excel was released the same claims were pointed at accountants.
Excel helped financial teams accomplish more in less time, freeing them to solve harder problems.
Likewise, SQL was originally aimed at business executives to quickly and easily get any information they needed from their databases. We see how that turned out!
Laying off managers seems like just another stretch of the rubber band. Companies are just bouncing back and forth reacting to new stimuli.