There are a number of great comments here, but one of the best things I've seen from "fresh eyes" is identifying entrenched waste.
In manufacturing, eliminating waste/process improvements are always being looked at and often encouraged. The vast majority of manufacturing efforts require bespoke solutions (material handling, planning, quality, etc.), that's most likely why it's hard to find "common solutions". Many get tied into common systems, but it's often a "we made it work" condition and not seamless. So walk the floor, observe what's bespoke, observe what could be common and integrated, then explore those items.
ERP software seems to be the largest contributor in this space. I would look at modern solutions as much as you can. Many companies are entrenched in SAP and Epicor (QAD, Netsuite, etc.) which try to do everything and often don't do anything really well. Start there, but there may be more obvious areas to look at in your observation. Good luck!
I cannot agree more with this comment. CAD software is still so dominated by proprietary systems that maintain their own version control and feature set. And since all the major players offer a "suite" of tools, there's no incentive to seamlessly interact between products. You spend so much time trying to figure out how you are going work with importing a neutral export (meaning you've dissected the data from its version control), and maintaining any data accuracy.
I was honestly extremely hopeful when OnShape hit the market. Granted it was still a proprietary tool, but felt it had the tooling and integrations to bring CAD systems into the "modern era". Then they crippled their free offering, removing it's discrimination from tools like Fusion. And now with their purchase by PTC, I have no hope in it making any further waves in the CAD space.
Apple just finished closing down (pretty sure) all their stores in the East District of TX so all these suits can no longer be filed there. Might help conclude a bunch of these...or not...it's a ton of money we're talking about.
I agree that it's worth looking at all public structures of font selection as well. The Highway department is in this right now. Highway Gothic is old an difficult to read, yet instead of a public domain free to use sign font, they are battling the use of Clearview which comes with a cost because it has a copyright attached to it.
There are multiple needs here and it seems the only action comes from the "sexy" side of things.
Yes not to mention the thousands of companies that have to deal with Ex/Im laws that cannot move to "the cloud". Not to mention the CIOs that will have to tell there lawyers that all there IP is leaving the network...but don't worry, it's still secure. The list goes on.
The other thing is the writer seems overwhelmingly fond of Pure Storage...until they are bought by one of his Walking Dead. Instead of calling these companies "Walking Dead", he should be highlighting more the approach Microsoft has done. What Dell/EMC, IBM, Cisco, HP, and more will start to see is that they can operate in both worlds. Amazon will never turn over there stack to a company so that it can operate inside that companies physical control, but the listed companies (like Microsoft) can make there stacks available "in the cloud" and palpable to the public furthering there market.
To me, whereas Amazon and the like have plenty of growth ahead of them, these "Walking Dead" have higher ceilings although it will take quite a bit of inertial change. I can see IBM already working and heading in that direction. If they (like Microsoft) become another success story, it will be hard for the others to ignore that strategy.
But the author got his clicks and his eyes...so I'm sure we'll see of this.
So they are saying that they can never get a NSL to turn over information, but where are these servers? Who has the keys to the door of the server room?
So maybe they don't get the NSL, but the people/group/company that is handling the servers might. This seems disingenuous. I could be wrong, but it feels like they are making claims that will dupe people into their service because they feel safe.
Agreed, he raises no convincing point. And yes, if you are in a very traumatic accident the helmet is only going to do so much...and like you said the one thing it does is the one thing you cannot live without.
You can go on living without a leg/arm/spleen but a brain injury...
This would mainly be used for posting to sites that allow images but not custom javascript. If you run your own site and can use MathJax, then you are fine but for others that cannot include the javascript (comments systems, social sites, etc.) this would be a nice alternative.
That's not necessarily regressive, if a billionaire buys the same house someone making $70,000/yr doesn't make it regressive. It's not linearly progressive (ie 1:1 ratio of taxes to taxable amount), but is still progressive. Current income taxes (federal at least) are more regressive even though quantity of money might still be higher for higher income individuals.
I could be completely wrong, tax stuff confuse the hell out of me...
This really is a big option...but I can't see this taking off either. Secure Email Digital IDs have been out for forever and very few people use it...even fewer webmail clients use it. What seems to be obvious, doesn't appear to be catching on at all.
I like the post. I'm always concerned that then next product I like will get bought and shut down. I don't fault the founders for wanting to make money, but do see the type of "sale for IP/Team" jobs as a failure not a startup success.
One think on HN that I always see are comments like: "If the service is supported by advertisers, you aren't the customer." What I like about this post is that it hits home again where, "If the service is supported by investors, you aren't the customer." Unless the startup can achieve profitability and "payoff" the investors, then a sale--either to keep the project going or for IP/Team--is the startup catering to it's customers.
Thank you. I've had an issue with the White House petitions since it's inception, and could put my finger on exactly why. And this absolutely articulates my thoughts.
Actually Congress cannot pass a law regulating it per the 10th amendment. They can pass laws governing other things that effectively regulate this--often by withholding federal funds from states that do not comply--but have no power over this specific issue.
If Musk wants the US Congress to interfere, maybe he should sell liquor in the most lavish and expensive and functional "bottle case" ever conceived. But selling liquor in a car "case" might not be the best PR move. hehe.
I do all the time, mainly because of lock-in at work and family laptop. Python is really easy to do this with. But yes, web code gets deployed to a Linux box.
But you can do quite a bit from desktop application to the source of this post, DataNitro (Use Python in Excel).
> mostly use Visual Studio/.NET and just do Python on the side
I have nothing to back myself up, but I would be surprised if this is actually the case (ie most Windows users program with VS/.NET). I'd like to find out if there is any real data on this.
In manufacturing, eliminating waste/process improvements are always being looked at and often encouraged. The vast majority of manufacturing efforts require bespoke solutions (material handling, planning, quality, etc.), that's most likely why it's hard to find "common solutions". Many get tied into common systems, but it's often a "we made it work" condition and not seamless. So walk the floor, observe what's bespoke, observe what could be common and integrated, then explore those items.
ERP software seems to be the largest contributor in this space. I would look at modern solutions as much as you can. Many companies are entrenched in SAP and Epicor (QAD, Netsuite, etc.) which try to do everything and often don't do anything really well. Start there, but there may be more obvious areas to look at in your observation. Good luck!