- Can't view demo until dismissing cookie banner (which I didn't see since its like ShadCN or whatever like the rest of the site). Thought site was broken for 20 seconds
- Demo step 3 animation looks strange/broken
- Obvious GPT copywriting in site and in this post (turn-off)
Notes:
- I don't think I am your target customer. I run a seed stage startup and am the only sales person. I don't do things like MEDDIC/BANT, although maybe I should
- I use fireflies for sales calls (and all calls) currently - just to have a searchable transcript of the call. I would replace Fireflies if I thought I would get enough of a benefit by doing so, but I currently don't - I don't feel like I need the coaching. I wouldn't want two notetakers in my call
- How could I make sure the bot only joins/analyzes the calls that are sales calls? How does it know which stage of the funnel the person I'm talking to is? Would be worried all I get is slop without the context needed to filter things appropriately
I would be in favor of anything that improves the current political system, including a shot at this policy. On a meta-level, I would even be in favor of new political processes that are WORSE, simply because the adoption of such a policy could prove to people that we CAN change our processes, and then we could (try) to continue to amend our process until we find one that works.
My personal favorite approach at the national level would be Ranked Choice [1], as that would preserve the (IMO important) single decision maker in the executive branch, while removing the incentive to vote for someone you hate just because they aren't as bad as the Other Guy. Interested to hear if HN knows of other/better ways to accomplish the same
I do agree with the general spirit, but do keep in mind that certain kinds of change are hard by design to ensure a degree of stability. Normalising the modification of electoral processes can backfire badly, certain groups will definitely try to bend the system to their advantage, and it is not unlikely that, the way the winds are blowing right now, it might lead to a collapse of the underlying democratic system that enables it. It goes both ways.
FPTP (First-Past-The-Post) pushes toward a two party system. When you switch to RC (Ranked Choice aka. Ranked Ballot or Ranked Voting) or even PR, that push is relaxed and you are likely to start seeing more parties.
The problem with Ranked Choice with more than two parties is that the centrist parties tend to win more often because they are more likely to be the second choice of people whose first choice is a left or right leaning party. That can be a problem if they get 100% of the power when they win.
PR is better because how much power each party has depends on what percentage of the votes they get in the first round (there not being subsequent rounds), so it is unlikely they will get 100% of the power and everyone's vote counts because it increases the power of the party they voted for.
With Ranked Choice, you may end up getting your second or third choice instead and your first choice then has little to no power.
Most of the democracies in the world today use PR (at least 2/3rds) instead of FPTP (about 1/3rd). Ranked Choice is less common.
Be careful with what you wish: the worse system could stick for longer than you would find comfortable, or are able to stay alive.
Otherwise, I'm as much in favor of RCV as the next guy, or maybe more. New York implemented RCV for some smaller-scale things, so I was happy to actually do a ranked choice, instead of putting all my vote into strictly one option, last time I voted.
I originally agreed with you, but I've struggled communicating how RCV works to rural Minnesota. I've found more personal success communicating this model.
Magnetic (YC S25) is building the AI tax preparer for accounting firms. We use vision models to extract and structure data from tax documents and automatically populate legacy tax software, saving CPA firms hours of tedious data entry per tax return. Firms are coming to us faster than we can build - our next tax season is already 10x the size of October's, and we have a waitlist for several X more.
We just raised a $5.1M seed round and are building a small, senior, in-person team. We believe in everyone talking directly to customers, and getting into the workflow themselves (i.e. learning how to do tax returns). We like to work together all day, whiteboard new ideas, get lunch together in person, and get drinks after work.
I have often wondered why the government doesn't do anything about this. Is the science not clear enough yet?
Quick search shows that we knew about lead hazards as early as the 1920s/1930s, but it took until the 1970s to get regulation about lead paint and gas - hoping we don't repeat that in this case
"Your" behavior??? The second you try to put this on individuals, you lose the plot and it turns into another "personal carbon footprint" scam like what BP pulled in 2004[1]. The only way out of this is public policy and international cooperation.
I don't know what the most common sources of microplastic particles are, but the messaging needs to be such that people know we aren't getting rid of all plastics, just the stupid ones that are most responsible for potentially harming us. I think straws were banned because there was a video of a plastic straw stuck in sea turtle's nose, not because they're one of the top sources.
In micro and nano scale things can behave differently so it is quite hard to decide what to ban.
Plastic straws and caps attached to bottles - reason was that there are too many of them and people don’t behave properly and don't throw things in the trash and throw them on the ground where they are eaten by animals. At some British beach they counted >100 caps per 100 m (or something similar, it was a surprising number).
If historically worries that arose in mouse studies replicated with high reliability in humans, we would not wait for the results of human trials to apply what we learned for mice to humans on anything of importance.
It's not that we want to do humans trials. We do it because, apparently, it has been observed that it's unreasonable not to do it before applying something we observed in mice to humans.
How well does the link need to be proven before we act?
The fact that we haven't found the causal link yet is not proof that there isn't one. And a whole lot of correlation suggests that there is. Why should we not take this as yet another reason to regulate throwaway plastic?
For what it’s worth, you don’t need a randomized controlled trial if you can offer an explanation for how microplastics affect human health.
Hence the classic joke “As with many interventions intended to prevent ill health, the effectiveness of parachutes has not been subjected to rigorous evaluation by using randomised controlled trials. Advocates of evidence based medicine have criticised the adoption of interventions evaluated by using only observational data.”
It's a bit too much of an umbrella term for regulation to fix in one swoop, but if i were alive in the 50s and had the internet i simply would not buy lead-paint.
> if i were alive in the 50s and had the internet i simply would not buy lead-paint
The contamination is so widespread and is in things you can't avoid (like the air) but I have made some lifestyle changes that I hope decrease my exposure at least a little bit. I:
- don't drink water out of plastic bottles
- don't use any plastic dishes at home
- switched from using tupperware for food storage to mason jars
- use bedding made from natural materials (mostly cotton)
- prefer clothing made from cotton as opposed to polyester (exception: some exercise clothing)
- don't eat meat (this was not because of concern about plastic, but I think it's helpful here too)
My family mocks me for this, but I also hold my breath when I clean the lint filter in the dryer, because that cloud of dust that shoots up is, I believe anyway, a whole pile of breathable microplastics.
not always an option and to some this entire concern could be considered a luxury.
Who are you trying to communicate this issue to and what solutions are there that they’d find reasonable until governments address it? If it’s simply “don’t buy plastic” then I understand that I’m out of bounds. Perhaps along with many others.
Animal studies seem like the best tool for untangling this, and they indicate that high plastic doses cause a variety of health effects, some of which seem to align with broad health trends we see in our population over time, like in fertility.
It's not like there's zero data to inform the risk calculation.
Yes but in those situations, you typically can at best find associations between variables and outcomes. We really want evidence of causality, although it sort of depends on how you interpret the precautionary principle.
The science is very clear on microplastics existing and being in our bodies.
The science linking that to specific outcomes/harm is almost non existent from what I understand.
Edit: to those downvoting - I'm not downplaying anything here, I agree they're concerning and we should be worried - just stating the fact that as far as I know the research on outcomes is very inconclusive at this point.
If the current US government started doing anything about it right now, i would immediately regard it as 100% horseshit. America won't be in any position to lead ... anything scientific, medical or even thoughtful for a generation or two, at least.
I know there are still people hanging on in their fields trying to do the right things, but the bullshit engine in DC is so strong now that nothing is believable. If you are working in scientific research in America today, your only career goal needs to be emigration.
If this impacted you - we are hiring at Magnetic (AI doc scanning and workflow automation for CPA firms). Cool technical problems, building a senior, co-located team in SF to have fun and build a great product from scratch
Air travel can be revolutionized with a vacuum-sealed passenger transport system, reducing total airport time to just 10 minutes while maximizing efficiency and safety. Upon arrival, passengers would undergo a rapid preparation process, where an oxygen-rich biofluid is introduced through both mouth and anus, ensuring full oxygenation without the need for active breathing. They would then be gently encased in a flexible, vacuum-sealed transport sheet, immobilizing them completely to eliminate security concerns and expedite boarding.
These passenger sheets would be automatically sorted and loaded onto aircraft via a conveyor system, optimizing cabin space with a precision-stacked configuration. Without the need for traditional seating, aisles, or security screening, aircraft capacity could increase significantly, lowering ticket prices while enhancing operational efficiency. Upon landing, passengers would be swiftly unloaded, revived from stasis, and ready to continue their journey within minutes.
This system would not only eliminate delays caused by baggage handling and TSA procedures but also enhance fuel efficiency by optimizing passenger distribution within the aircraft.
FYI this is a reference to the opening statement of the Unabomber Manifesto "Industrial Society and its Future". Don't think OP meant anything by the distinction of US/humans
> The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the
human race.
Fairly obvious for those who've spent enough time online, I'd say most people would only recognize that first sentence. The Unabomber Manifesto has become something of a copypasta
