I’d be down for this/have wanted something like this for remote friend groups like founders, but how does it work exactly? How is it different than most online poker events?
I noticed there's a huge interest to play poker within founder communities.
But online poker strips out all the best social elements of a solid in-person game.
And getting a large group of people together for an in-person game is extremely time consuming to setup / limited to people within your geo.
So we decided to build the most high-end way to setup a private games with the people that matter most to you.
1. High-end: We use real dealers + real cards to power your game.
2. Highly Social: Completely changed the traditional online poker UI to support conversations. You can jump from table-to-table, have 1:1 convos with others, integrated music, etc.
3. League format: We setup private leagues for groups to have that social excuse to get together more regularly. As I've gotten older, it's harder and harder to get a big group together in one place. This makes it easy + access the people that matter most to you from the comfort of your home.
It's been really fun to build, would love to get feedback from the YC community!
We actually did a mini internal hackathon among ourselves to see what we can do in 1 hour. We created a codepen (multiple code editors hooked up with iframes), spotify + lyrics + translation mini app, and a mini-dashboard.
Besides the common use-cases of creating apps or dashboards, we are excited about: AI apps and workflows, interactive education materials, a playground for kids to start thinking about logic, and hardware interface controls.
This is inaccurate. In no way did people have to turn to their personal finances to help companies that their company invested in. That is like your banker, seeing your dire situation caused by a third party to you, and writing you a personal check… That is actually what happened across multiple situations I witnessed. Not saying these folks are saints but pretty unexpected to see.
True, but getting a board to be liable has a very high standard of proof. If not then there wouldn't be any boards, the compensation would not outweigh the risks.
Given the choice between bridging some cash (knowing that the full faith and credit of the US government backs the funds being bridged), or having the possibility of getting dragged into proceedings in the future, which at best would increase my liability insurance premiums, I'd pick the former.
We made those same moves 100 years earlier, with liberty intact. If North Korea made this relative progress over the next 30 years (and 70 years after South Korea), this same argument would suggest there’s something we should copy there.
Any country in a retrograde economy has the benefit of existing modern technology to adopt as well as the absence of legacy encumbrances, making it easier to play catch-up.
It's similar to the "miracle" of Soviet industrialization. The USSR hired scads of advisors from Western companies to direct their efforts, then chest-thumped about socialism.
Or, for that matter, the Nazi economic "miracle". In their case, they started from the wreckage of WW1 and the Weimar Republic, but they used knowledge and corporate organization that predated both to rebuild, while letting their ideology and leadership take credit.
There was no Nazi economic miracle - it was built on debt and was unsustainable, which is why it's discounted. Not because somehow it used existing expertise, of course it did, that's entirely normal.
As far as that, I don't see how hiring foreign advisors somehow make your own economic achievements worthless - anyone can do that, and it's stupid to expect everyone to reinvent the wheel.
As far as that, I don't see how hiring foreign advisors somehow make your own economic achievements worthless
Because there were no "own economic achievements" in this case. The USSR claimed to pioneer a new and superior economic system to the capitalist West, but their greatest period of growth and improvement was accomplished through Western direction.
It wasn't through Western direction - they did not implement free capital market, which was the "Western direction".
They imported technical experts from the West to help them design and build things until they figured out how to do it themselves. That is orthogonal to the economic system.
What problems do you imagine that the Chinese government has solved which Western governments haven't?
It certainly hasn't solved violent oppression of minorities, though admittedly it's more industrious and organized in that field than any Western government.
>What problems do you imagine that the Chinese government has solved which Western governments haven't?
I'm not imagining anything. For one, China has been able to deal with the pandemic much better than the average Western government, beyond that there is the issue of infrastructure development such as high-speed rail, internet connectivity, etc.., as well as the issue of staying away from major wars, and so on. That's not to say it's overall any better, but that Western governments do everything better is simply false.
>It certainly hasn't solved violent oppression of minorities, though admittedly it's more industrious and organized in that field than any Western government.
Since you're making the comparison, I don't think the Western massacre of around 150 million minorities for it's development nor the murder of 1 million+ people in the Middle East for a recent example, or the millions in penal labour, is anything that the Chinese have to envy. Murder and opression works just as well in "free" governments, thank you - it's just exported, for the most part.
"For one, China has been able to deal with the pandemic much better than the average Western government"
Ah, a shift of goalposts from "many problems we aren't able to solve" to "better than the average". Meanwhile, Western and heavily Western-influenced countries like New Zealand, South Korea, and Japan have done much better than China regarding COVID, without all the authoritarianism.
"as well as the issue of staying away from major wars"
Give or take at least eleven million war deaths in WW2 and the Korean war. (And, pointedly, excluding the larger Chinese government democides of its own people.) If we take that to a round century, we get another three million dead or so. You really are cribbing from the same bizarre talking points as the other guy in this thread, aren't you?
"I don't think the Western massacre of around 150 million minorities for it's development"
Ah, but there's the problem. You're comparing centuries of history of the West--which would be comparable to the wars and imperial abuses inflicted on its neighbors by China over centuries of its history--to what China is doing right now with a system of concentration camps. That's not just tu quoque, it's downright sleazy, especially when you cite "millions in penal labour" as a defense of the PRC.
(It's also telling that you keep referring to "the West" when you clearly mean "the US".)
>(It's also telling that you keep referring to "the West" when you clearly mean "the US".)
The West has implemented NATO and thus offloaded most of it's foreign intervention to the US in exchange for other concessions.
>Give or take at least eleven million war deaths in WW2 and the Korean war. (And, pointedly, excluding the larger Chinese government democides of its own people.) If we take that to a round century, we get another three million dead or so. You really are cribbing from the same bizarre talking points as the other guy in this thread, aren't you?
China was in a defensive position in WW2, they didn't have a choice. As for democides, sure, those are pretty bad, do you want to compare them to the atrocities of the third Reich or does that also not count as the West? I kept West to West.
>Ah, but there's the problem. You're comparing centuries of history of the West--which would be comparable to the wars and imperial abuses inflicted on its neighbors by China over centuries of its history--to what China is doing right now with a system of concentration camps. That's not just tu quoque, it's downright sleazy, especially when you cite "millions in penal labour" as a defense of the PRC.
No, I compared the million of deaths in less than 20 years to that, after you made the comparison in the other comment. I'm not a making a defence, I'm responding to your whataboutism in kind. Just as easily I could have read the above comment as defense of the murder of a million people in the Middle East by comparing it to mere reeducation camps, which is downright sleazy, but I didn't, because I assumed you were arguing in good faith.
From someone who lives literally anywhere outside of the West, including Muslim countries, the atrocities of the PRC are very comparable to those of the West.
People keep thinking that only authoritarian government commit attrocities, while their own governments commit warcrimes at the same time. What cognitive dissonance.
Better that it took 200 or 300 and we have advanced liberties instead of a totalitarian state. There's no amount of prosperity that pays for a dystopian state like China.
I'd like to add that those moves we (assuming you're referring to the US) made 100 years earlier were not made with liberty intact. A lot of our progress was built on the back of slavery and racial discrimination at scale in housing, education, transportation, jobs, etc.
Slavery isn’t in dispute, nor segregation, however I’d posit that those elements dragged down society and the economy rather than strengthened it (it was detrimental to progress). Same as serf slavery in Czarist Russia before liberalization, it dragged down their economy immensely.
Also, the genuine improvements of the last 40-50 years in China come from abandoning communism in the economic arena and embracing markets. Just, you know, without politically liberalizing.
The comments in this thread so far, imo, resemble comments at the beginning of dismissing BTC (just an observation, and I was one of those making similar observations in 2011/2012).
At that time the claim was that BTC was a payments solution that would replace credit cards and cash. I feel OK for having dismissed that. It turns out that BTC has little inherent value, and is mostly just a tool for speculation. It's desirable to hold only so long as you think someone else will buy it off you for more later.
I think it's the the same with these NFT art tokens. They are not particularly useful as a thing to own, but if enough people believe they're worth something, then I guess they're worth something.
No it isn't... You can buy just about anything with any of the world reserve currencies. You can also pay taxes in the applicable jurisdiction with any government currency.
Buying something with a currency, and paying taxes, are both other people buying the currency off of you. In one case they're buying your currency with goods and services, in the other they're buying it in exchange for protection. McDonalds gives you burgers because they want your USD. They want your USD because everyone wants their USD. That's how fiat works; the biggest difference between Bitcoin and USD is that Bitcoin is deflationary, while USD is managed by a central bank.
World currencies regularly collapse. What people fear might happen to BTC has already happened to the Zimbabwean dollar, the Argentine peso, and many others. It even happened to the denarius during the crisis of the third century. Even with stable currencies, there is plenty of risk to be had in FOREX trading. So... saying that BTC is a lot like every other fiat currency is not so much a complement as it is a neutral observation.
It isn't about potential for collapse, and even if it was it is far less likely that the USD collapses tomorrow than BTC does...
USD, Euro, Yen, etc. are all far more useful as a medium of exchange than BTC. I would argue that their primary usage is just that - a medium of exchange.
Until you can buy most useful things easily with BTC it is not like fiat.
Lastly, if BTC or any other crypto was to grow to the extent that most people were willing to accept it in exchange for goods or services, I believe that governments would be incentivized to shut it down.
I promise you, if I showed up at my corner store with a EU50 note and said "Would you give me a gallon of milk for this" the dude would take it.
He probably wouldn't give me change, so my effective exchange rate for Euro->USD would be something like 20x reality, but you gotta pay for convenience.
Too much inflation is obviously bad, but it's also bad if the most attractive investment in an economy is the currency itself. If a system actively discourages people from investing or spending their currency, things grind to a halt. The people who benefit the most are those with the most idle cash. The people who suffer the worst are those who are forced to spend their limited cash on basic necessities.
To be clear: I'm not advocating for unchecked inflation or runaway spending. I think the current US inflation rate is too high and excessive stimulus spending is ill-advised. However, investors have been investing their cash in assets and investments to avoid inflation long before Bitcoin was invented.
There's a big difference here in that NFTs as currently implemented are nothing more than an a trend. They don't have any actual value, or function. At least with BTC you could buy drugs.
What can you actually do with Nyan cat other than just sell it on to the next person. I can enjoy the image and I don't even own it.
NFTs are neat, don't get me wrong, but to have any value or use, they require an element of trust behind it.
This topic (on a tool like Carta) would be worthy of discussion in a startup forum no matter the author, correct? I see part of your sentiment regarding context, but this can turn pretty constructive with the question that’s also on my mind: Has anyone experienced this by using Carta? I am actually in the process of thinking about switching to them.
As long as you’re okay with politics leaking in. There isn’t a sub of any significant size that doesn’t become a reflection of the leftist echo chamber of the larger community.
Mods can surely delete comments that outright state anything political, but they don’t control the fact that the votes are controlled by the community and the votes favor things that fit in with a particular political world view.
All this to say, a vote-driven platform with an overwhelmingly one-sided user-base is not a great place to host a community.
This is not my experience with the specialized subreddits I follow (mostly reading, health, and tech related, all on the smaller side). However, I have noticed that people who like to label things as "left/right echo chambers" are extremely sensitive to what other people say and often read political intent where none is intended. Could this be what's happening to you?
> political intent where none is intended. Could this be what's happening to you?
Nope. You’ll notice I didn’t say anything about intent. It’s much broader with entire classes of ideas being oppressed and other bad ideas being accepted with refutations shunned.
A comment that reveals more about your leanings than anything to do with reddit.
Are you sure you're sufficiently equipped for a discussion about echo chambers and politics? Doesn't appear so. A moment of introspection might serve you well.
> A comment that reveals more about your leanings than anything to do with reddit.
It can’t be both. Either Reddit is biased and I don’t lean the same way or my comment said nothing about my leanings. Figure out what point you’re trying to make before throwing vague statements out.
> Are you sure you're sufficiently equipped for a discussion about echo chambers and politics? Doesn't appear so. A moment of introspection might serve you well.
Says the person who was incapable of actually engaging in a discussion about echo chambers and instead engaged in a personal attack.
It's more likely that you're sitting on the far end of a normal distribution, and what you see as an enforced echo chamber is just the vast majority of users sitting in the middle of that bell curve doing their thing.
In other words, if everyone is sitting to the left of you, maybe you're just sitting really far off to the right.
It’s not that there is anything particular about Reddit that attracts leftists, it’s just dominated by a young demographic that generally skews far left of the wider population.
> other words, if everyone is sitting to the left of you, maybe you're just sitting really far off to the right.
It’s not “everyone”, it’s just a simple majority of the users on reddit, which demographically is sitting to the left of the wider population.
So (setting aside the fact that a two dimensional political spectrums is bullshit) yes, I’m sitting on the right side of the curve in Reddit’s user base. But so are most professionals, parents, etc (I.e. folks over 25). And you only have to be sitting slightly to the right of the median before the vote ratio steam rolls you’re world view.
> and what you see as an enforced echo chamber is just the vast majority of users sitting in the middle of that bell curve doing their thing
That’s literally a fucking echo chamber. A community that has a voting mechanism that reinforces the views of the majority and suppresses anything unpopular with that majority group.
And yet plenty of right wing echo chambers exist there too and have for a very long time. They continue to host communities on reddit which are all, one sided. What exactly are you doing here on HN? Injecting politics, how are you any different than the folks you're complaining about?
> And yet plenty of right wing echo chambers exist there too and have for a very long time. They continue to host communities on reddit which are all, one sided.
You’re confused about what I’m saying. I didn’t refute that some group can gather in a special sub for right-wing topics while carefully banning thousands of wider users.
What I’m talking about is hosting a non-political community. The entire user-base of Reddit, on average, is leftist and those views leak into your community in the form of votes against/for particular topics.
> What exactly are you doing here on HN? Injecting politics, how are you any different than the folks you're complaining about?
Again, you’re confusing explicitly discussing politics with the effect of an echo chamber enforced by votes. Do you need me to explain the difference further?
Have to agree. 280 characters is not that much better than 140, and what good ideas are compressed into that format. Sure you can link to a blog post, but then you might as well use rss.
How so? Do you mean that people "would" help if they weren't racist? San Francisco, which has one of the largest homeless populations per capita, has a homeless population that is 35% caucasian (the largest represented racial group).
(Edited to add: Caucasians make up 40.2% of the city population)
Across the West (where I travel the most) see that most homeless is white. I would say too, that, even in places with much higher Mexican or migrant populations, such as Tucson, AZ - the homeless population is also mostly white. At least visibly. Homelessness doesn't seem to be related to racism, it seems to be a very white specific thing (at least in these western states - CA, WA, OR, MT, CO, UT, NV, AZ, NM, WY).
“Visible” homelessness is often quite a different demographic to overall homelessness - for instance women and children tend not to be visible. There may be a similar effect with race.
It's kinda hard to find, but Tucson's homelessness was 72% caucasian, 19% native american.
I don't think there is any interagency that is putting these numbers in one place yet... that's probably desperately needed for this country to start tackling the problem.
There may actually be a reason why white people are specifically affected- and it is probably related to family processes.
You will note that it calls out that African Americans are extremely disproportionately represented in homeless groups (13% of population, 40% of homeless people), and in the overall demographic table we can see that white people make up about 50% of homeless people vs ~70% of the population. It also mentions that among the population of unsheltered people, which are the group I'd call more visible, white people are slightly less under-represented, at 60%.
The only place '72%' comes up in the report you linked is the BoS counties, not Tucson, so I'll assume you meant that. That seems well out of proportion to the total population so I'd ask some questions about how well the counts cover tribal lands, etc (since it's actually a count used for federal assistance, which is handled differently on tribal lands). There is increasing attention given to the lack of attention to homelessness on tribal lands, and they definitely used to not be counted - this report gives some info on how they can be undercounted even if included http://www.ruralhome.org/storage/documents/rpts_pubs/na_home...
That may be true, but I was specifically talking about Western states. I definitely agree there is a huge variance as you shift east that African American homelessness is much higher.
At this point I wonder if you’re really just striking the trivial observation that the west is majority white and so are the homeless people there. In literally every state, black people are over represented among the homeless and white people are underrepresented. However, in most states, the majority of homeless people are still white, because the state population is mostly white. It is, in any state, a complete falsehood to say that homelessness is “a very white specific thing”.
Talking about Hispanic homelessness is much harder, because there are many variations on how studies count white/Hispanic, and because it’s a less visually identifiable group than black people. Let’s look at Tucson. Pima County was ~37% Hispanic in 2015 (https://www.tucsonhispanicchamber.org/uploads/5/8/0/4/580457...)
Tucson homeless population in 2016 was 30% Hispanic. Among adults without children, it was much lower: just over 20%. So non-Hispanic people are actually a little overrepresented, but probably looked very overrepresented among the visible population. And if we look at why there is that difference, my first thought would be that the Hispanic population is weighted towards children (about 50% of school enrollments, from that doc above) who are less likely to be homeless. So I would still disagree that it is at all a “white-specific thing” even in that location.
(calculated from here - https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/apitl/1/AOcbyEzOLNSVbwFWOs...
)
And if we just look at white/not-white: you do realize that Tucson is over 70% white people, right? And the homeless population is also just over 70% white. That’s not any kind of argument for it being a “white thing”.
