thesash

“Become the person you want to be” might better capture the sentiment we tend to express with advice like this.

Again, I'm not saying it's not possible I'm saying that it's going to be really, really hard and that saftey is the critical path to making this viable. I'm sure they are spending all of their time and resources devoted to improving saftey. I'm just pointing out the ridiculousness of focusing the PR on time savings and cost parity when the saftey deficit is currently massive.

What am I missing that addresses the math?

Loss rate for Space Shuttle program was 1.5%

135 missions, 2 lost.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a6611/us-space-shuttle...

Are you motivated by money in this situation?

Yes, totally, I get that they have a plan to make it safer -- my point is that a 20,000x increase in saftey is a massive leap, and that will be the limiting factor for this technology.

The loss rate for manned space launches over the past 20 years has been 0.79%. What you're pointing out (only once every few decades) is a factor of the small number of manned launches per year. Actual loss rate is very high. 1/130 chance of loss.

There are three things that would factor into my decision about whether to strap myself to a rocket rather than fly in a plane: time, cost, and safety.

Musk & SpaceX are talking a lot about time and cost, but safety is obviously a lot more important. Based on data I found on the internet (so it must be true!) the loss rate for rockets is 20k - 165k higher than the fatal crash rate for airplanes over the past 20 years.

Loss rate for manned rocket launches [1]: 0.79%

Loss rate for unmanned rocket launches [1]: 6.68%

Rate of airplane crashes with at least one fatality [2]: < 0.00004%

Even if SpaceX is able to make manned space flight 10x safer, I'm not sure I'd trade 19 of the 20 hours I spent traveling from LA to South Africa this summer for a 1/1,300 chance of blowing up during launch.

[1] https://space.stackexchange.com/a/12229

[2] http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm

This is actually a pretty good reason to move from group 3 to group 1. If your goal is to be part of group 3, but are unable to find an organization with a healthy culture, then there may be an opportunity to build your own.

Facebook is doing some pretty interesting work in this area https://www.facebook.com/spaces

Your privacy policy page returns a 404...

What if you read that statement as "URLs are the basic interface of the web"?

Precisely this. The examples in this article are all examples of innovation UI design, which is just a small, albeit highly visible edge of design.

That being said, startups like Uber, Waze, AirBnB, and Nest have all reached staggering levels of success by re-designing the entire stack of user experience in their respective markets. While the interfaces of these products are generally clean, they're not really the crux of the design innovation. Instead, the critical design innovation is elsewhere, in design of the systems, processes, technologies, and even business models that enable a magical end user experience.

I think the answer is more or less that transportation costs aren't going down. We produce more than enough food to feed the entire world population, but the poor can't afford to buy it because of the cost of transporting it to them.

Love the idea. Love it so much that I bought the domain reread.co a while back with the intent to create something very similar!

It has nothing to do with virtue, and I'm not suggesting that entrepreneurs aren't ambitious, I just think you're confusing ambition and drive. If your goal is wealth and security, then starting a company is a terribly risky way to pursue those goals, and statistically you'd be better off taking a job at an established company that can afford you a nice salary and job security. That's where drive comes in. Entrepreneurs who hope to make it to the finish line are going to end up being uncomfortable, anxious, overwhelmed, and afraid (not to mention underpaid) more than 50% of the time for however long it takes to achieve success, which generally seems to take 7-10 years. If the source of the drive to start the company is wealth and security, then why persevere?

In my experience what drives great entrepreneurs is not a desire for wealth, power, or fame; it's a burning desire to make a small change in the world, usually in the form of bringing their product to market. Whatever success may come next is a byproduct of that drive, not the source.

Can someone who understands the strategy behind fundraising explain why they would want to raise at such a high valuation? To be clear, one point left out of the article is that the $3.5B - $4B valuation is a rumored valuation being "considered" by the startup (Their most recent round of funding valued them at $800MM). When I read about the "rumor" my immediate thought was: Snapchat leaked that to the press to gauge the response from potential investors / acquirers. The thing I don't understand is: what is their goal here? It seems like raising at a 3B+ valuation limits their options for an exit to either an IPO or an acquisition by one of maybe 3 companies. Raising at such a crazy valuation also seems extremely risky considering the volatility of apps in their space and the fact that they haven't even begun to explore monetization. What am I missing?

I can't wait to explain to my grandkids someday that back when I was young we used to let humans drive big hunks of plastic and steel at breakneck speeds, with nothing more than our laughably slow reflexes standing between life and death. They'll rightfully think it was barbaric and tragic that we let thousands of people died each year in accidents caused by distraction, drunkenness, exhaustion, and plain old human error, all at the hands of people granted the right to operate killing machines by way of a test passable by the average teenager.

Sounds similar to BoxBee[1], although they don't photograph & inventory, they just catalog & store individual boxes and make them available on demand.

https://boxbee.com/

Well, look at the centuries of violent war that preceded most modern, stable nation-states. Europe was pretty much in a constant state of conflict from the fall of the Roman Empire until WWI.

Nationalism is also an interesting phenomenon, in that over time it tends to transcend ethnic groups, but only once the thread of common identity has established itself. Take a look, for instance, at the post WWI Middle East, where the imposition of arbitrary zones of influence (the origins of many modern states) disrupted a budding pan-Arab nationalism in favor of keeping a balance of influence between the colonial powers.

The United States is a completely different case in that the nationalism that took root here was based on a shared identity among immigrants of (relatively speaking) diverse ethnic groups-- but even so, our early history had no shortage of atrocities committed agains native populations, as well as conflict among the constituent religious and ethnic groups that comprised the nation.

That being said, nation states seem to be a very stable and agreeable governance paradigm once they become established, but a shared identity amongst diverse groups (ethnic or otherwise) takes time to develop, and as history has demonstrated, it certainly can't be imposed from the outside.

People don't generally accomplish something immensely creative or interesting by setting out to do so. Instead, they stumble upon that great idea after some amount of time spent pursuing their own curiosity. The process looks something like:

1. Do things that interest you

2. Follow the threads of those interesting things towards a deeper understanding of your domain

3. If you're so inclined, specialize further and repeat

4. With some combination of luck, perseverance, and time, you may become the "best" at something for a brief time, but either way you'll have learned a lot and pursued your own curiosity.

This is super cool! I can't tell you how many times I've been driving between LA and San Diego or LA and San Francisco, and just wanted to find a coffee shop, edible food, or even a gas station. For all the things Google maps is great at, this is not one of them (despite some of the comments here to the contrary). Great work, and if you'd care for some unsolicited advice, a mobile optimized version would make this a killer roadtrip companion, and if you wanted to, you could certainly wrap it in an app and sell it.

It refers to the ergonomic problem inherent to the "minority report" style interface used for any extended period of time[1], though to be fair to the creators of this project, this is very clearly presented as a casual, alternative interface, not one to replace mouse and keyboard.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorilla_arm#.22Gorilla_arm.22

A few on my "re-read every few years" list: Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, Speaker for the Dead, Infinite Jest, Watchmen, The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay

There are two actually: http://www.daniellemorrill.com/2013/03/zombie-startups/

and http://www.daniellemorrill.com/2013/04/double-tap/