Seems like 3 is a bit pessimistic. After all, if there are 3 founders then that greatly decreases the chance that the CEO steals equity from the other 2 cofounders. The CEO generally wouldn't have > 50%, so the non-CEO co-founders could keep the CEO in check.
Seems accurate according to my experience. It’s the new investment banks in later rounds that cause it. Bigger investments, stronger guarantees, better preferences, and lack of understanding on the part of inexperienced founders, plus lack of power held by the employees options pool … recipe for “only the banks see any upside.”
alot of financial engineering happens if the company is raising large rounds, if you leave early as a cofounder, they will absolutely mess with your equity. And even if you are there, youre considered an expense, unless the CEO explicitly advocates for you
its so common that I am shocked people willing enter roles like co-founding CTO without serious legal protections in place. go spend time in NYC/SF and talk to actual cofounders
> Students would no longer get worse grades for misbehaving or handing in work late.
Is it any surprise that if kids don't have to turn in work on time, their performance drops? Yet this "innovation" is pitched as "mastery based learning" and embraced by schools across the country.
I blame schools of education, who seem to have no problem pushing one bad idea after another (as long as the new idea aligns with progressive goals).
Perhaps they don't like the explicit connection I've made to progressivism? The article leaves that part unsaid, but it's pretty clear this is where it came from.
Interesting article, and then at the end you see that this Stanford student is also pursuing his own path to fame and riches — by publishing a forthcoming tell-all book about the apparently seedy underbelly of Stanford.
Perhaps he is not so different from his subjects, at least in terms of his end goals?
He's a nepo baby; His dad is Peter Baker, chief White House Correspondent for the NYTimes and his mom is Susan Glasser, a staff writer at The New Yorker & former editor at The Washington Post.
He might be a nepo baby, but he also might be a person who had two extremely successful professional writers tutoring and mentoring him for years on end.
Exactly. It means that if you've ever tried to get an appt and been told there's a 4 month waiting list, AI could help get you in sooner. That is a real win.
> But, especially given the underfunded nature of the US health system, that is extremely unlikely to mean more time with each patient. Instead, it will mean more patients.
So that means if I try to make an appt, I'll have an easier time getting one? Sounds good, I guess.
True, a kid who has had too much screen time is not good, just like a kid who has had too much lunch is not good. That doesn't make lunch bad, it just means the kid needs the right amount.
Screens can be helpful for kids (mine have learned a ton from Khan Academy and other online tools), but kids will have different thresholds. Some will only be able to learn a little from screens because they can't work independently. Others can learn a lot. Blanket statements like "kids lean better from humans than machines" are not helpful. They obscure the fact that there is typically one teacher for 25 kids, whereas there might be 25 screens. Even if a screen is only 1/10 as good as a teacher, it could be that learning from a screen is better than learning from a teacher (who is busy with your classmates almost all of the time).
My kid learned more math when she was doing AoPS for 2 yrs than when she was in class listening to lectures she already knew, followed by worksheets she had already mastered. Machines enable much more differentiation.
Your anecdata has a gigantic blind spot of you being a capable and engaged parent that monitors and guides your children’s screen time to be educationally productive. That time is a luxury, and your expertise is rare.
To take it back to the lunch analogy that you provided, it’s a bit like saying, “I don’t know why everyone’s kids are hungry at school, I pack a nutritious and filling lunch that I know my kids enjoy every morning.”
Logically speaking, this is incorrect. OP said that humans teach kids better than machines, full stop. To disprove this claim, I do not need to show that all kids learn better from machines, just that some do. I have shown this, and even admitted that it doesn't work for all kids.
Also, I didn't need to monitor/guide my kids so they could learn from AoPS or Khan Academy. Those platforms are self-guided. But regardless, my kid learned pretty much zero from school math, so the threshold for "better than the teacher" was very very low.
I’m going to sidestep your pedantry and focus on why we’re actually having this conversation: it is obvious from data and observations at scale that children struggle to learn meaningfully in the presence of technology, i.e. screens, in the same way that children learned with educators of the quality that taught previous generations (higher salaries).
Techno-Utopianism is such a grating ideology, especially when thrown into the ring alongside all of the other garbage that education experts have to deal with when trying to enact meaningful change in the education system.
> "This isn’t a calculation error – it’s revision to better estimate how these payments are made," said H.D. Palmer, a spokesman for Newsom's Department of Finance.
Nice excuse. Reminds me of "it depends what the meaning of 'is' is".
"The memo stated Gov. Newsom's administration made two errors. The first involved double counting CalPERS contribution rates for the upcoming year, which the LAO said was a $1.6 billion miscalculation. The second issue involved incorrect contribution rates when the administration calculated how much money the state would need to contribute to CalPERS in the years ahead. The LAO stated that mistake amounts to about $450 million. "
...
"This isn’t a calculation error – it’s revision to better estimate how these payments are made," said H.D. Palmer, a spokesman for Newsom's Department of Finance. "We told legislative leaders and the LAO back in February that we would update how we estimate these payments once this issue was identified. We’ve already made that adjustment, and it will be reflected in the revised budget next month."
Can someone please explain to me how double-counting isn't a calculation error? Best attempt wins.
When a political organization has no qualms about putting out a statement like that, it's a sign that they do not respect you.
I find the video to be very annoying. Am I supposed to freeze frame 4x per second to be able to see whether the images are actually good? I've never before felt stressed watching a launch video.
"It means shifting from time to mastery. You don’t move forward because you’ve spent enough hours in a class. You move forward because you can show what you know."
This sounds great! I can only hope that it's up and running in time for my kids to consider it as a serious alternative to traditional university education (and possibly HS, to be honest). Even if my own kids don't use KTI, it would create a competitive complement to university education that would both reduce the bottleneck and create incentives to justify the incredible cost of university education.
I thought this was going to be about how people prefer different levels of blackness for the background in dark mode. I've heard people say that pure black is more battery efficient for OLED displays (but don't know if this is true), and I know some folks prefer a less-inky grey.
I was wondering how there could be six levels though; I'd think 3 or 4 would be the most anyone could notice or care about.
I do wish there was more conversation around the levels of blackness for dark modes. Black screen and white text is physically painful for me. I usually have to resort to reader mode, or open up dev tools and change colors myself, to make a page like this readable for me.
I appreciate how hard it can be to make a good dark mode; I've spent months building a custom dark theme I term "mid-contrast". It's still WCAG compliant, but easy on my eyes, and I've stuck with the (maybe silly?) requirement of 16 colors only, like Solarized.
I'm the opposite. Anything other than pure white on pure black for dark themes gives me eye strain. If you use the dark reader web extension you can adjust the brightness and contrast to your liking.
I don't like white text on a pure black background either, but for me the solution is to dim the text, not brighten the background. I can't stand the push away from allowing pure black for OLED devices based primarily on Google's design strategy. Though personally I don't want to force my specific preferences on everyone and instead think people should be able to configure it how it suits them best. That's all I want for myself.
there's a firefox (maybe chrome too) extension called dark reader
not only it wil dark-ify pages that don't support dark mode, it will alter the tone of dark mode pages to a more enjoyable (i like to add some pastel colors)
for dark mode pages that are already perfect, you can disable it on a per page basis
only trouble i had so far is that disabling or enabling happens per-site. so I can't have dark mode on google, disabling it on google maps
Maybe silly is the wrong word. But sometimes I think I would make things easier on myself if I allowed some shade variants. It's good for me to keep the constraint though.
I've been spending some time creating a Visual Studio theme using this palette and the way that IDE uses colors is... less than great. Trying to find the right token to change is an exercise in madness, and many things that are visually the same in importance/hierarchy use very slightly different shades for some unknown reason.
The more universal solution would be to standardize Reader Mode compatibility, and for browsers to let users configure how they want Reader Mode to look.
In other words, instead of an n x m solution where every web site has to cater to each different user preference, there should be a simplified content view that every web site only has to support in a singular way, and that allows browsers to cater to the various user preferences.
This likely would have happened already if it weren't for Google's hostility to Reader Mode. It's hilarious to see the Reader Mode that they offer, where it's a resizable 2-column view, to ensure that ads are loaded and kept in sight. We get it, Google: you don't want to endanger your ad revenue.
The comment I was responding to was suggesting n x 6. And there are also aspects beyond brightness and contrast, like font styles and sizes, line height and margins, justification and hyperlink style, and so on. The things you can or want to configure in an e-book reader.
I feel like we could go beyond that, especially for more app-like experiences. Maybe we want themes that do things like "add specific trim to make editable fields more identifiable." or adding "high contrast" versions of the themes for low-quality screens or low-vision users.
There's no reason a webpage shouldn't be as themable as, say, a GTK or Qt based desktop application.
We should be trying to snatch back styling power from the designers and putting it back on the user-agent's side. Let the page look brutalist until the user has chosen an appropriate theme for their needs rather than railroading them into what someone in Marketing decided looked good.
It is significantly more efficient for oled displays, as off oleds don't use power. It also causes burn in on a smaller part of the display which is usually good (but this could end up being a disadvantage over time as the burn in contrast is higher).
It's also more efficient for led matrix backlights.
Edit: sorry, realized this is misleading: my testing was with light vs dark, not something like dark grey vs 00 black
Did you? If you read the article you'll find that there's a specific (and quite popular) claim going around that 0% brightness is much more efficient than 1% brightness because pixels can be "fully off". Yes, it's theoretically more efficient, but as per the article it's within the margin of error. For all practical purposes, it's not more efficient.
for OLEDs, I tend to prefer pure black because it doesn't burn-in. Since they have a limited lifetime, any "on" time is costing me usage in the long-long-long run and I'd rather have my monitor last 5+ years than ... 2 or 3.
>any "on" time is costing me usage in the long-long-long run and I'd rather have my monitor last 5+ years than ... 2 or 3.
Going from dark gray to pure black isn't going to halve your monitor expectancy, if it makes a difference at all. Due to how human perception works something that's merely dark gray is actually orders of magnitude brighter than pure white, or even 50% gray. Therefore most of your burn-in is going to be driven by bright content like photos or white text, not whether you're using 5% gray vs pure black.
reply