Are there any legitimate wikipedia competitors though? I still view genius and hypothesis as not in the same field of "encyclopedia knowledge base." To really be a competitor to wikipedia you'd need to look like an actual wiki in my opinion.
I had the very same exact experience. It is astounding to me that there are no legitimate competitors to Wikipedia at all after 15 years. It's funny how social networking is such a competitive space from facebook --> instagram --> snapchat etc but it's still just Wikipedia --> Wikipedia --> Wikipedia
I'm wondering the exact same thing. And also, I am wondering if all these companies that are clearly later than seed stage get the exact same offer of 7% for 120k. Is there somewhere in YC terms that says that is the only deal they offer to new companies, or are we to assume they potentially are recieving more diversified deals?
Giphy clearly comes to mind as something recently created that is in the consumer tech/data market which is going to become a behemoth at its rate of growth.
None of this clickbait nonsense compares to what Facebook and Google have on most of us and the average American. These people that run something like this and boast about knowing "When the last time you had Chinese food was" are literally the information industry's equivalent of click farms and scraper sites.
What a big fall from grace. Really wasn't expecting this to happen :( I think now the elephant in the room is that just how much of the actual company is built on substantial, tangible, and valuable assets. Unlike some people here, I really don't believe the entire thing could possibly have been a massive lie/fraudulent venture. This is probably textbook "overstretching the truth" and failing to deliver before everything implodes in a massive blaze of glory.
Does anyone here that actually has even slight first/second hand knowledge of the inner workings at Theranos know just how much of it is an 'actual, tangible business?'
This is the most correct and obvious/very low cost way to do it that you almost start to think Amazon is in on the conspiracy with these fake reviewers because they have something to gain that we are not seeing.
One of the most important ways the brain communicates is actually not just ionically through chemo-ionic channels but through summed wave activity. This is especially important in sleep and also during long term potentiation of circuits.
Both Uber and SpaceX are technically 'transportation companies' in a loose sense. None of the things you listed above really further any field in basic science and academia. SpaceX's achievements simply sound cooler because it is with big rockets and more tangible to write down for record keeping. They are essentially using rocket tech in a new, different way that employs a new business model for success - which, surprise surprise, is exactly what Uber does as well but with terrestrial transport vehicles.
I was very surprised at that exact same thing as well. I thought I was the only one. I really thought for a second that it was some magazine from the 90s or even early 00s.
Ya, makes sense. What about all the trendy open source stuff that have the TLD .io as their suffix like socket.io etc? How did the .io trend start anyway?
I think the difference between you and the people that want to work hard to "make the best chat app" is that the sense of fulfillment and the concept of living a good life between you and this group comes from two different things. For you it's just being happy by being with friends and family etc while for others its accomplishing something they truly believe in whether it's some college kid trying to make the next chat app or Elon Musk trying to make humanity an interplanetary specie. That sense of fulfillment is attained from different things - and that's ok. Everyone has their things that make them feel fulfilled, and they are not always the same. You just have to be honest with yourself to know what that is.
As others have mentioned, the one main distinguishing factor between blockchains and git (at least in practice because bitcoin's POW makes rewriting the chain expensive) is the consensus among its general users and in inability to actually change the history of the blockchain. Mathematically they are very similar, but git repos aren't "secure" in the same way. That's why I would argue against the author that git isn't the most valuable blockchain in use today although it could very well be the biggest.