ronilan

20 ms·

121.
by ronilan 7y ago
Bitter times? For sure. Very. (Not because of YC though. It was already a mess, why would they want to touch it?) (BTW there was Can’t Wait at YC S11) [1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/techcrunch.com/2011/
122.
by ronilan 7y ago
Thanks for asking. The specific names of the three judging partners aren’t important (obviously) what is important though is that there is a tendency to provide those in position of power (generally, or in a given situation) with a layer of
123.
by ronilan 7y ago
> I was interviewed by three partners Who? They are people, right? I have a name, you have a name, the three partners must also have names. Who were they?
124.
Go vs. Go (2009)(blogoscoped.com)
1 points by ronilan 7y ago|0 comments
125.
by ronilan 7y ago
Aaron commenting on his own interview: http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/interview2
126.
A Chat with Aaron Swartz (2007)(blogoscoped.com)
16 points by ronilan 7y ago|1 comments
127.
by ronilan 7y ago
OT: My favorite movie quote: let lastHungarian = ‘go’ run()
128.
by ronilan 7y ago
All things considered, I’d say neither the horse, the goat or the husky are good metaphors for getting shit done. The bull is ;)
129.
by ronilan 7y ago
Obviously. With sandwich shops, location is a key differentiator. We are X for Y, where X is the sandwich shop and Y is specific location. Sandwich shops is also a highly competitive market. As such, when you look at a snapshot in time it s
130.
by ronilan 7y ago
> how UPS differentiates themselves from FedEx. Wikipedia will tell you that UPS started as a parcel delivery service in the early 20th century. Naturally it was ground based and evolved that way. FedEx was founded in the 70s as a tech
131.
by ronilan 7y ago
> but if you hope to reap the benefits of having your work in front of a lot of people What OP says, and you miss, is that some people are not interested in reaping benefits. They are interested in doing work. They are constrained by t
132.
by ronilan 7y ago
I’m sure it’s intentional (this is a well-thought and well-executed feature). I also understand the logic. I feel uncomfortable with it. It creates patronage relationship between people and a) I personally do not want that kind of relations
133.
by ronilan 7y ago
> The biggest limitation of the current Sponsors implementation is that only individuals can become sponsors. Interesting. Wonder what was github thinking around this. Seems backwards. Stripe should be your sponsor not Patrick.
134.
by ronilan 7y ago
I got early access a couple of weeks ago. That’s my profile: https://github.com/sponsors/ronilan I’m conflicted about the concept. I understand that when a software project has no formal institutional “home” (it’s new,
135.
by ronilan 7y ago
I bet that if you ask Tim Cook he’d say Genesis. Great when led by Peter Gabriel but even better when led by Phil Collins.
136.
by ronilan 7y ago
I’m not an art critic and I don’t know what the paintings are worth, but what I do know, for what it’s worth, is that each and every time I look a “squiggly lines” and think “wow this looks great” it turns out to be a painting by Jackson Po
137.
by ronilan 7y ago
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Indeed.
138.
by ronilan 7y ago
“Two cripples do not an athlete make” — folklore
139.
by ronilan 7y ago
Obviously. That’s the first thing you teach kids when the start browsing by themselves. Google provides a security layer over the brand-domain pair. Google profits handsomely from this service but it is invaluable nonetheless.
140.
by ronilan 7y ago
So taking funds from someone is designed to ensures their commitment to the taker? That’s a logic I never heard before. (It’s a line item in corporate accounting. That’s it’s only justification. It can easily be abolished if there is any mo
141.
by ronilan 7y ago
I think the opposite is happening. The tax ensures that any app developer has costs to recover. It thus drives them to do so in ways that reduce quality. At the same time it pushes away the hobbyists who may have decided to develop non-mone
142.
by ronilan 7y ago
My advice to Craig Federighi - start by abolishing the annual tax that is the Apple Developer Program fee. There’s more, but let’s start with that.
143.
by ronilan 7y ago
It’s a little less than 50 years away by now, so the schedule is clearly getting tight, and it is also a huge undertaking, so nothing should be taken for granted, but given current technology, it might actually be possible for a human to wa
144.
by ronilan 7y ago
It didn’t hold up because, while it does sound catchy and nice, the assertion is wrong. And it’s wrong not because of the “toy” part but because of the “next big thing” part. There is absolutely no guarantee of a ”next”, a ”big” or “a thing
145.
by ronilan 7y ago
Who brushed?
146.
by ronilan 7y ago
“Whatever Mark says, Sheryl is inclined to agree”
147.
by ronilan 7y ago
As far as I understand they go back, goal to start with A* and use heuristic scoring that is smarter than the simple Taxicab geometry. That is at least what I understood from what the text explains. I might be wrong though.
148.
by ronilan 7y ago
It’s A*. I wrote one encapsulated as an ES6 JavaScript Class a while back. Just dropping it here if anyone finds it useful. https://github.com/ronilan/a-mazing-thing Use as you wish.
149.
by ronilan 7y ago
Ambivalent Computing is the new auto completed mission statement. It replaced Don’t be Drivel.
150.
by ronilan 7y ago
Dunno about regrets but this clearly shows that neither of those two institutions aged well.

More ›