HackerTrans
TopNewTrendsCommentsPastAskShowJobs

kyshoc

no profile record

comments

kyshoc
·4년 전·discuss
no citation, but I wanted one of these as a kid and remember them being around $100-150 USD in the early 00s
kyshoc
·5년 전·discuss
Not sure this is what GP was referencing, but TMS is approved[0] for treatment-resistant OCD, depression, and migraine headaches.

[0]: https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-perm...
kyshoc
·5년 전·discuss
James Carse has a theory[0] about this: “There are at least two kinds of games. One could be called finite, the other infinite. A finite game is played for the purpose of winning, an infinite game for the purpose of continuing the play.”

[0]: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/189989
kyshoc
·5년 전·discuss
While I appreciate the “middle” metaphor, I think it’s unwise to generalize business (and real life situations, more broadly) as a chess game — life doesn’t often come with symmetric information and zero-sum stakes. Annie Duke says it better than I can, in her book[0]:

> “Chess is not a game [in a game theory sense]. Chess is a well-defined form of computation. You may not be able to work out the answers, but in theory there must be a solution, a right procedure in any position […] If you lose at a game of chess, it must be because there were better moves that you didn’t make or didn’t see.”

> “The decisions we make in our lives—in business, saving and spending, health and lifestyle choices, raising our children, and relationships—easily fit von Neumann’s definition of ‘real games.’ They involve uncertainty, risk, and occasional deception […] Trouble follows when we treat life decisions as if they were chess decisions.”

[0]: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35957157
kyshoc
·5년 전·discuss
+1. I can also recommend his new book “Staff Engineer: Leadership beyond the management track”.
kyshoc
·5년 전·discuss
That’s almost exactly what happened on Southwest 1380[0] a few years ago.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines_Flight_1380
kyshoc
·6년 전·discuss
To split this hair a bit, I think “code quality” has two definitions:

1. the degree to which the code can be trusted to operate correctly and in a fault-tolerant way (i.e. “yeah that API endpoint will give you a 5xx about 2% of the time, sorry about that, just retry!”)

2. the degree to which the code optimally models the problem it’s solving, as well as how flexible it is as priors/needs change in the future and whether optimal languages/frameworks/patterns are used to solve the problem expressively.

The former has obvious customer implications — if your webapp craps out every ~20min of usage, or your API silently drops data when it can’t persist something to a data store, that’s bad, you will lose customers (and you deserve to!). Conversely, lacking in the latter could slow you down as you iterate, but you’re just as likely to not need to touch that code for a while if you’re off building new views/features/what-have-you.

I think the “don’t worry about code quality” folks are generally trying to beat it into technical founders/builders’ heads that the thing they’re building is ultimately being judged as a product, not as an engineering project... but that doesn’t mean that reliability and performance aren’t part of what may make your product valuable.
kyshoc
·7년 전·discuss
Indeed.

The YC application has a question along the lines of "why is the thing you're building so compelling that customers will tolerate a buggy product?"