noahmbarr

There is no question Waymo is a better consumer product for most trips around places like San Francisco proper.

So if you have a better product, why waste calories with membership cash grabs vs scaling your core mechanic? If there was a larger fleet, wait times wouldn’t be long— so line skipping wouldn’t be a problem.

Only conclusions I can come to: (1) Their core money mechanic (charging for rides) isn’t that attractive (2) they cannot scale fast enough, or (3) both

Love to have someone steelman the argument o/w

IMO; you should try the product. The car basically drives me everywhere with no interventions, including on errands around SF. Just plug in where via the Google Maps view.

I’ve been paying the monthly for a while. Very worth it to me.

Let’s see if this is the time for industrial robots,

Boston Dynamica: Majority Owner: Hyundai Motor Group (80%) Minority Owner: SoftBank (20%)

Don’t rule out Tesla’s Robotaxi. I’m 10 rides in (Bay Area— around SF proper), and it’s clean, cheap, and efficient. As good or better than Waymo.

IMO: - Tesla is pushing Waymo on pricing and service areas - Tesla will drop the safety monitor in the next 6 months**

**I say this as a FSD subscriber on my own car and seeing the arch of progress, albeit with a software branch that’s supposedly 3-6 months behind Robotaxi’s

Blame doesn’t matter here.

Sandbox rules simply don’t apply when real money is at stake— the contracts that sit behind these relationships are all that matters + a companies ability to stop doing business with one another.

Delta probably isn’t even entitied to a pro-rated refund of their prepaid CrowdStrike subscription. If Delta has a multi-year deal contract with CrowdStrike, Delta most likely have to keep paying CS for some time In the future.

CrowdStrike breached but almost certainly cured within allowable period.

Maybe they sue for gross negligence which I think may circumvent contractual liability limits in certain situations.

(SaaS CFO’s perspective)

If push comes to shove, Delta can sue and/or stop using the product.

This is ultimately a question of contracts, liability limits— particularly if Delta secured consequential damages.

SaaS contracts are designed to defaulted to NOT allow a customer to pursue consequential damages remedies.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequential_damages

This is a question of CrowdStrike’s Deal Desk contracting hygiene.

Deal Desks are the joint finance-legal-sales teams that work on enterprise contracts in scaled enterprise SaaS startups.

This is a SaaS CFOs nightmare.

Is prioritizing developing these skills good for a child’s overall development?

Great NPR segment about the cost of a life, and who dialysis set a lin in the sand:

https://www.npr.org/2010/09/24/130104047/who-decides-the-pri...

Tesla ordered the recall, they weren’t ordered.

Existing HN titling: “Tesla ordered to recall almost 4k Cybertrucks over faulty accelerator” should probably be adjusted.

My question is not a joke. It's comes down to this: how you would like to be treated if the situation was reversed?

What sort of world are we creating that if we see a problem, some people would rather complain publicly vs take your concern to your vendor/partner directly to get it resolved?

(I don't know if this attorney went to Carta first, before publishing. )

Had one in college: inadequate lighting so I plugged a standing light into an un-switched outlet.

Worked great until I put on anything with a lot of bass.

Their website would suggest they are prioritize hardware over software.

https://agilityrobotics.com/

Countless details show a lack of polish, finish, or thoughtfulness. As an example the looped video, arguably the main feature, is clipped in portrait mode and is rendered (literally and figuratively) underwealming. It’s viewable in landscape.

Perhaps it’s just an intense focus on the end product instead of external marketing. I can’t help but wonder if there’s an eye for excellence in this org.

No question, humanoid robots are coming. If this startup can’t stand up a decent website after an Amazon investment and an Amazon PR push, did they rake the time to through safety concerns (local shut off, etc)?

This isn’t a very very bad. This stuff is highly controlled for a reason.

Engines have a variety of LLPs (Life Limited Parts), and airlines are required to count cycles, hours, etc and replace with OEM certified replacements— all part of the reasons jets don’t fall out of the sky

First, pilots should be commended. 101 (or 104) souls were saved.

This is an almost 23 year old plane. Even with checks and maintenance, was age a factor?

1st: This is awful for impacted employees.

2nd: When done well, this can lead to more nimble, faster, higher output organizations that get MORE done.

Time will tell

While deplorable, is price discrimination along non-protected customer segments (“classes”) illegal?

Hard to reconcile with the driverless car that just rolled by me as I’m walking down the street in San Francisco.

I can’t imagine this is going to age well.

Workshoping this. Appreciate your thoughts. Drives my investment thesis.

Amara's Law: “We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run.”

Other people asked a bunch of q's so I tried to present it a little differently

Key concepts that were net-new from the article: * 10 year concept IRS restriction * Concept of a transfer Block essentially requiring a company sponsored secondary * Idea that Stripe could stay out of it, and just allow (partially) transfer waiver to 3rd party investor * The concept of most startups strong preference against creating liquid wealth events for early employees prior to IPO

Perhaps you knew all of this, but the other commenters didn't seem to have this knowledge top of mind.

(Uninvolved growth-stage CFO perspective)

The IRS mandates that stock option grants expire after 10 years. My best guess is these early employees are quickly approaching those grants' 10 year mark, and face an exercise or "lose it" situation.

If you exercise, you have to pay the gain. For early employees, this could/would be a massive bill -- probably well into the 7-8 digit range for some early hires.

Stripe seems to be teeing up a secondary sale of these stocks themselves -- where Stripe is offering to buy some of their shares back from those early employees, allowing the employees to exercise ('buy") all of those early options and (at least) pay their tax bill.

Usually, a company will limit the # of shares eligible for a secondary purchase so current/former employees can buy all the stock, sell enough to the company to cover that person's resulting tax bill, and keep the remaining stock until IPO. By limiting the # of shares they will allow to be purchased via the secondary, Stripe will almost certainly make sure the secondary does not create post-tax cash gains to make people wealthy!

It doesn't have to be that way:

Stripe could allow ANY investor to buy the shares directly from those employees -- but guessing Stripe has a blocking right on stock transfers-- so they have, and will continue to block early employee sales to new investors. Stripe and many companies have these transfer "veto right" to make sure they can control their ownership ("cap table") and also to make sure early employees don't get rich before the IPO.

This is my best guess-- I am not familiar with the Stripe's situation.

Is this a generically targeted release (initially) aimed a specific company/vertical?

It's not uncommon to test RIF-impacted employees for gender, age, race etc against the general population.

In fact, in certain states (like CA), you often list all the ages of the people in the department, and who is and isn't impacted IN THE RIF'ed employee's SEVERANCE PACKAGE. I believe this is employment law driven.