gms

Yes, because revealed preferences are different. Meta's properties (for example) have billions of users for a reason (me included).

Some people are prone to feeling bad irrespective of social media. One can also espouse the same view about video games (I don't play them anymore for this reason, but certainly did as a child/teenager).

I think you should talk to some real life teenagers to see how hysterical this impression is.

This is a manufactured impression by people who don’t understand these systems and the reality around them. Yes I would have played video games all day as a kid but I had a functional family and friends to engage with. It’s true that if you don’t have functional parents then perhaps all bets are off.

And anyway iPhones provide controls for parents to limit screen time.

It’s not mutually exclusive. If you interact with kids today you’ll see that they do both, just like I did with video games and in-person meeting. They’re still human beings.

I agree about being outsiders. Social media (if this is even a well-defined term) is just how people communicate these days. No need for hysteria and banning (I was on Slashdot in the 90s. Was that not social media?).

I think it’s as ignorant to want to ban kids from social media today as it was ignorant to want to ban my generation from video games 30 years ago. The kids at the time thought the adults were clueless people who did not understand technology. Kids today correctly think the same way about adults who are hysterical about social media.

Each parent can decide the time and age boundaries for their kids. But to think a 14 year old is going to accept being excluded from communication with their friends is just laughable.

Socialising. Same benefit I drew from playing video games with my friends when I was in school.

(Though, to be a bit pedantic about it, kids don't use Facebook.)

I know many parents who manage this fine, I don't see why you can't:

1. You control whether your child has a phone and how much they are allowed to use it (Apple provides all sorts of controls for parents).

2. Every child in the school is not an addict. This is (for lack of a better term) a boomer view of the world.

They've been around since before their current owners were born and espousing the same philosophies.

Does it generate native apps, or just Electron?

That's how the world works. No country produces everything.

No. It's a similar situation with certain AI features from Google.

I also found this to be a fun read! Was intending to skim but ended up reading the whole thing. The level of care shines through - nice work.

No, there is a difference. Burglary involves coercion. The choice to shop at small/big bakeries is yours alone; no one is forcing you to pick one.

This is a common rite of passage for early-stage startups :)

The answer may sound glib but I don't mean it as such: don't have an unlimited plan and migrate existing customers off it.

At the end of the day it's just a VC's view. This doesn't count for much.

You two can easily tell him no thanks and move on.

Some arguments here from a bygone era (none are convincing to me): https://hbr.org/2016/02/the-very-first-mistake-most-startup-....

We have the same model as you at the company I co-founded. The only valid worry that comes to my mind is a 50-50 split with no person designated as the boss. But you already have that part sorted.

At least amongst Bay Area startups at your stage, a 50/50 split is common. It has its advocates (YC amongst them) and detractors.

Given how common this is, it's peculiar that this VC is bringing this up so early in the lifetime of the company. CEOs often get different refresher packages as the company grows and assembles a board, but you're not at that stage yet.

If your co-founder is happy with the current arrangement then he can just tell the VC no thanks and everyone can move on. It's your company, not your VC's.

More generally, the most troublesome part of all this is that, at your early stage, every minute spent talking about this is a minute not spent on your product and customers.

Sorry, my fault for being unclear.

Meaning, sometimes people set up one-way syncs only. Our syncs don't have to be two-way.

That's no problem for us. We'll just resume where we left off when it comes back on.

(Polytomic co-founder)

Haha! I’ve been in this market for over ten years now. The term ‘CDP’ is notoriously ill-defined.

More generally, we move data in all directions, rETL is just one part amongst many others.

Each integration is supported as both a source and a destination. So you can have two one-way syncs set up between systems A and B, thus moving data in two directions.

(Polytomic co-founder here)

QuickBooks Online. All the applications we support are cloud versions.

(Polytomic co-founder here)

Each sync in Polytomic is one-way so we're not forced to deal with collisions all the time.

But you can, on a per-field basis within a sync config, declare that field not to be synced if the destination system already has a value in the corresponding field.

This setting is a proxy for deciding where your source of truth is for each field if you are indeed setting up two-way syncs.

Most customers are pulling data into their data warehouse, then syncing from queries that generate other values back into other systems. This issue doesn't come up there. But customers of ours doing two-way syncs between, say, HubSpot and Airtable or such do need to decide where the source of truth is for each field.

Hopefully the links below are helpful!

Our clients come in multiple languages. You can see the list here: https://apidocs.polytomic.com/guides/native-clients.

You can see here for sample code: https://apidocs.polytomic.com/guides/code-examples/overview.

The full API reference is here: https://apidocs.polytomic.com/api-reference.

Wow thank you Noa! Hope you are well!

What are you looking for exactly? Happy to answer questions or point you to the right place.

(Polytomic co-founder)

Thank you for the kind words Ani!