Built this so researchers like me can create a simple bio & share it with a short public URL with no ads. It also compiles the info into a CV & bonus- there's also a cute avatar builder!
Thanks for sharing, hn isn't quite the audience for the site's design, but fwiw I really like the quirky design - there's alot to appreciate and get inspiration from.
Congrats to the team, looks very useful. I was an early customer of the Macaw App from the same creator(s?) and was excited for its development and had deeply integrated it into my projects but they got aquihired then all development stopped and bugs frozen in place... honestly didn't feel good and left me wary of new apps like these. Anyways, hopefully this one has a long bright future.
I have similar thoughts. I don't see how I could trust my notes to someone else, besides the obvious privacy implications I just don't feel like it makes sense to rely on someone else for something important like this. I want the data on my computer, and I want to be able to use the version of the software I like and not be forced to update to increasingly awful garbage as they try desperately to grow enough for an IPO or whatever the fuck. Yes, I am still very bitter about Evernote, why do you ask?
This thought experiment crosses my mind everytime I read the crazy ages of the characters in the book of genesis, the obvious consequence is that space travel and technology would be the dominant science since the earth and this solar system is way too small and boring for creatures who live that long.
"This case asks us to draw the line between anticompetitive behavior, which is illegal under federal antitrust law, and hypercompetitive behavior, which is not."
I feel this contradiction within me when I find myself promoting and praising the growth hacks and 'doing whatever it takes' mentality startups employ and then subsequently realizing that at the same time I would probably shame and criticize the same tactics if the same company got large.
That gets at the crux of the problem: hyper-competitive behavior can become anti-competitive when you are powerful enough and have enough leverage to make anti-competitive behavior part of your strategy. The line between "anti-competitive" and "hyper-competitive" today isn't a line, it's a big messy gray area.
It's pretty hard for an underdog or tiny startup to be anti-competitive because they simply don't have the leverage to do it. They can still be dishonest or immoral, it's just hard to be monopolistic when you're not anywhere close to being a monopoly.
The problem is that we’re terrible at assessing the morality of companies. We tend not to care about what startups do, even though the “doing whatever it takes” mentality sometimes leads to deeply concerning behavior (i.e. Instacart/door dash tipping dark patterns, Zoom security practices, online advertising startups generally, etc.)
Part of it is that business models are getting increasingly complex, and it’s getting harder for laypeople to really grok how a particular company makes money, especially when consumer data is involved.
The public tolerates quite a bit of unethical behavior by companies if they determine the value of the product to be worth it (i.e. Facebook). And some entrepreneurs see these examples and think that there are no consequences. There really is no concrete mechanism to assess morality in companies. Marketing gets to dictate most of that.
Uber is the prime example of this. They broke many laws and regulations in order to provide a better product/user experience without much punishment to get to where they are today. If Uber started breaking more laws today they would be shot down very quick.
> If Uber started breaking more laws today they would be shot down very quick.
Unfortunately, I don’t see this as being true. I’d be willing to bet they’re still breaking laws and ordinances today and we’re just not aware of it.
Part of it is the news cycle today, we’d never see a story about Uber breaking some municipal laws with the state of the world as it is. And after all, they have tons of cash, which is what breaking laws requires.
Until they suffer material operational pain from doing wrong, they’re not going to change.
I think that's ok though. I think that we handicap ourselves by trying to find universalizing systems and rules, and then throwing our hands up when we can't do so. I also think that this sort of thing is tacitly encouraged by incumbents because usually giving up benefits them.
Size matters. If a child hits you, you scold them and tell them not to do it, but you're likely no worse for wear. If an adult hits you, they could kill you, we call it assault and it has legal consequences.
The contradiction you feel is like saying "well I don't think we should punish children the same way we punish adults, so maybe we shouldn't punish anyone?". I know that when I put it into this type of metaphor it seems obvious, I'm not trying to be insulting, merely that when you change the context we suddenly see that it does makes sense to weigh different situations with different consequences differently.
Trying to find a common legal framework to cover a 2 person ramen startup and the continent spanning wealth and power of Jeff Bezos and Amazon, or Tim Cook and Apple is something that seems fraught, and the consequences for the actions that each group takes are vastly different. I think we shouldn't be afraid to judge or regulate them differently as well.
You should not shame and criticize Apple for being anticompetitive, you should lament that the US is not a fair playing field when it comes to anti-trust investigations.
Apple is under no obligation to behave fairly. Many (not me) would argue the opposite.
That is not a pragmatic view. Law works on assumption that most of the society will follow them (under moral or social pressure) and few rogue people will be punished appropriately. If everyone starts breaking the law, no Police/Govt will be able to contain it.
That's why I try to reflect on my feelings when I can because they aren't rational. I have to remind myself it's the fiduciary duty of companies to take legal advantage of any opportunity the law gives it.
I’m not confident that’s an accurate description. Companies are certainly beholden to their shareholders, but e.g. there’s no legal requirement to maximize profits.
Site is down. The words 'WiFi-enabled SD card' makes my imagination flow. I think in the future you'll have one SD card with all the electronics/computing power and you just insert it into various dummy devices to change it's capabilities.
The original NeXT vision was optical drives. You'd keep your $HOME directory on one and plug in to whatever machine you were in front of.
I remember when the iPhone came out, I wondered if the idea would be updated, but no.
Of course the world went more in the direction of Sun's network computer/JavaStation idea, where other people's computers substitute for the optical/SD card.
As Lammy said, it's not new. There was Eye-Fi, which was an SD card for cameras, but with a WiFi module so you can grab pictures off it from your computer. And there was SDIO, which was a WiFi module for your non-WiFi Palm Pilot, which you'd plug into your SD card slot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCqn_WpFSH4
I want to know why and how Queen agreed to do the music and the story of how the theme song was created. Would be super interested to hear that oral history.
Congrats, looks useful! Just an opinion, but I think you should skip the cool large animation on your homepage and just start with the "Our platform is essential in scaling and maintaining your business.". I had no idea what Batch was until I scrolled way below the fold.
