By default you can’t access the latest OpenAI models unless you request access. We requested access for a very straightforward use case and never got it. We switched to Anthropic and Bedrock for that reason.
I think that when people are worried about ZDR, what they really worry about is data governance. From what I’ve seen there’s a general distrust of OpenAI. AWS may keep your data around (without formal ZDR) but the concern of governance (using your data to train without your consent) seems like it would be much lower, because any breach of contract at AWS would have potential to destroy trust in what’s already a massively profitable company, so the incentives just aren’t there.
I’m not claiming OpenAI is training on API data. Just that they don’t have as strong of an incentive not to as AWS.
AWS took limited data retention very seriously starting around 2015. Before that it was reasonable controls and a strong culture preserving customer privacy. After 2015ish they started implementing strong controls, to where service team members cant feasibly access customer data in the service they run, and account termination starts a legit data removal process (“GDPR compliance”). They also take the terms of service and user agreement (“your data” etc) very seriously in general.
> First time founders are obsessed with product. Second time founders are obsessed with distribution.
I have personally grown an app from zero to 100k+ users, with no marketing budget. I don't have a magic formula, but i can say in hindsight that the first 5 users were harder to get than the next 999,995.
Here was my secret: I begged. Finding 5 people to actually use my product was soooo freakin hard. Once I got to ~100, organic growth started to take over, but things like responding to emails, fixing bugs and looking into new features right away make early users personally like you and more likely to tell their friends.
The hard part is finding the right people at the right time. I googled "Persona email scheduling" and found https://usepersona.app/, so I'll assume that is you. I don't know much about your product, but i assume you are targeting people who need to schedule lots of meetings. I have a few notes:
1) Your pricing is crazy. $660/year is a lot for automated meeting scheduling. Your comp should be Calendly which is closer to $10/month.
2) What problem are you trying to solve? Calendly seems pretty close to the perfect solution for one-on-one meetings. This seems to be for scheduling larger groups. Make that clear at the top of the page. If you are directly competing with Calendly, then just make that clear.
3) I'm not the audience, but think about who really has this problem. For me, 90% of my group meetings are scheduled within my company and we use Google calendar to find times that work. I dont do this enough that I'd feel compelled to try out a new product. Sales people schedule lots of 1-on-1 calls, but not sure that group calls is a big issue. So think about who this is really for. In general, just about the only time i will try a new product is if it provokes my curiosity (not gonna happen for a meeting scheduling bot) or it is solving a problem I need solved right now. Some products are really great, but finding the right person at the right time is a huge challenge. This is why I brought up the quote at the beginning. The right product with no distribution is very hard to get off the ground. I'd say that your early goal should be to find power users if possible... if you try to spread too wide of a net, you will probably fail. Better to have a few people who love your app than a larger group of people who think it's nice.
4) Let's say you do get a few users. Well, you are an email scheduling tool, so distribution is actually built on. On your free or basic plans, you can have a banner at the bottom of outgoing emails that says "This email was drafted by Persona, the tool for automated emails". Now you have free marketing on every email that goes out. Same way that my calendly link is free marketing for calendly. If people want that banner removed, they can upgrade their plan.
Again, take this advice for what it's worth, which is very little, since 1) I dont know your market well, and 2) what worked for me may not work for you.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I really like that quote -- hopefully I start another company and think about distribution straight off the bat. Can I ask what the product was? Even just a general idea. And, how did you find the emails.
I've found myself procrastinating a lot when it comes to trying to acquire users. It's a lot more fun to build features than it is to do cold outreach. Yes, you found the site :).
1) Understandable, let me reply to the other 3 points to see if pricing makes sense after that.
2) We’re not trying to replace Calendly. Calendly is great for link-based 1:1 scheduling, but many execs still operate primarily over email and actively avoid sending links. Persona is an email delegation layer that handles inbound scheduling end-to-end: proactive follow-ups, coordinating across long threads, and dynamically rescheduling when higher-priority contacts come in. That distinction should definitely be clearer on the landing page.
3) Fair point that you’re not the audience. We’re focused on founders and execs who spend a meaningful amount of time coordinating meetings over email. For them, the pain isn’t finding a time once, it’s the constant back-and-forth, follow-ups, and reshuffling priorities. Not everyone can afford a human EA, and link-based scheduling tools can’t handle that level of personalization (talking to an investor is very different than a friend). Research we’ve seen shows execs still spend 6+ hours per week on scheduling.
4) That’s a good point, and we’re thinking along similar lines. Since Persona operates directly over email, there’s a natural distribution loop there, similar to Calendly links, and we plan to lean into that more deliberately. Would you be bothered if you were on our 23/mo plan and still had a banner there? Also, do you think there should be a free tier beyond the 14 day trial?
Software for teachers. Teachers tend to talk to each other, which is great for distribution. On the other hand, they have very little spending power. But back on the other hand again, they don't get as many cold emails as execs do.
> Research we’ve seen shows execs still spend 6+ hours per week on scheduling.
Be very careful not to delude yourself here. No one is spending 6+ hours a week on scheduling who is willing to use your tool. That's almost a full workday. If you are at this point, you probably have a human assistant who handles this.
> Would you be bothered if you were on our 23/mo plan and still had a banner there?
Probably not. But if i were, i'd probably just upgrade to a higher plan.
There are 190+ other countries that can also approve it (or that aren’t organized enough to care about drug approvals). If there was an amazing treatment working in Lichtenstein, we’d hear about it.
You can easily simulate an early stage startup by getting together with some friends and each of you calls random people from the phonebook, tries to sell them a product that they don’t want right now and then gets hung up on. The winner is the one who persists the longest after repeated failure.
The sentiment here is right, but redis does make a difference at scale. I built a web app this year on AWS lambda that had up to 1000/requests/second and at that scale, you can have trouble with Postgres, but redis handles it like it’s nothing.
I think that redis is a reasonable exception to the rule of ”don’t complicate things” because it’s so simple. Even if you have never used it before, it takes a few minutes to setup and it’s very easy to reason about, unlike mongodb or Kafka or k8s.
Postgres itself has no issue with 1000 simple requests per second. On normal notebook hardware you'll get easily several thousand requests per second if you're just looking up small amounts of data by the primary key. And that is without any optimization and with non-DB overhead included. The actual performance you can get is probably quite a bit higher, but I've seen ~4-6k requests per second on naive, unoptimized endpoints that just look up some data in Postgres.
> Postgres itself has no issue with 1000 simple requests per second
Postgres in isolation has no problem with 1000 RPS. But does your Postgres server have that ability? Your server is also handling more complex requests and maybe some writes and concurrent re-indexing.
A PhD in psychology takes 6 years to complete plus another year for licensing. A PsyD is a little bit less, but typically you pay high tuition during that time, whereas most PhD programs are free (with a small stipend). So, you make little to no money (or pay money) for a long period of time and then you are presented with a choice to take or not take insurance. If you choose the former, you:
- Get paid half as much
- Have to deal with filing claims, which ultimately becomes an additional expense, since chances are you have to pay someone to do this for you.
- Get your money later instead of now.
- Have to keep meticulous notes in case you ever get audited by the insurance companies, who can refuse to issue payments if your notes don't meet their standards.
- Have to lose patients when their coverage runs out
Meanwhile, there's overwhelming demand for therapists in many cities and plenty of people who will pay cash. I truly believe that many therapists are not in it for the money... but if they are going to make less money, let's at least figure out a way to handle the bureaucracy so that their jobs are more enjoyable.
Where are you getting state counts, and what do they mean here?
As far as I know, most states have procedures for licensing several of these categories, and a couple more besides (Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist, for example).
I know someone who is in training to be a therapist. It still takes an absurdly long time and a lot of money to get any of those degrees. In New York, for example, there's a mandatory multi-thousand-hour internship that essentially treats you as indentured labor for several years -- and this is after getting a masters, which you usually pay for. The average case ends up substantially in debt, for a field where private practice pays mediocre salaries.
(Hot take: the masters was the truly offensive part of the equation -- most of the content was total bullshit / pseudo-intellectual woo. At least you're getting supervised practical training in the internship, even if your salary is low.)
> most of the content was total bullshit / pseudo-intellectual woo. At least you're getting supervised practical training in the internship
If you're lucky enough to get an unusually good internship.
Won't most of the interns be shadowing someone who is just practicing the same bullshit/pseudo-intellectual woo the elder therapist was taught by the same programs a few years earlier?
I don't know, but it seemed to be a pretty different level of thinking from the outside. When you're providing a service, you're grounded by the customer.
Depressed/anxious/whatever people don't generally want to have navel-gazing conversations about gender fluidity and the metaphysical dialectic (or whatever; I'm making up something woo-y). They want to feel better.
Yeah my wife is a MFT and it’s wild how long the process has drawn out before she made money. School, internship, practicum (actually just another internship), license exam, associates licensure requires a supervisor- either you pay them to supervise you or you have to work somewhere that will hire associates.
Anecdotally, as someone who is considering a career change out of tech, I am constantly shocked at just how long and how expensive it is to change careers to do anything else.
I shouldn't be surprised, given how much training it took me to get into this field, but being paid nothing and spending years in training was much easier to tolerate at 20 than at 40.
No this doesn't work. In Norway there is typically a minimum 6 month wait. Or you can see a private person who takes money today. Same in Germany, and the Netherlands, and basically everywhere else I lived that has subsidized healthcare. It's one of the things that falls through the cracks in my experience.
a) we're rich in the US compared to even Norway b) it's better than what we have, private options will always be there, they just won't be the only options with government competition.
The US is spending 50% more per-capita than Norway already and we are worse off. This doesn't include private insurance money which is insane amounts already.
Yes, but then if you have the kind of systemic issues that need mental health care an extra six months isn't going to break the bank. It's unpleasant and a long time, but it's a pretty far cry from the US nightmare scenario
Yeah or even something like mental health it is impossible to get anything. I also pay for everything mental health related despite having universal health care.
I take it you haven't ever interacted with the IRS beyond filing the standard deduction? Or interacted with Medicare/Medicaid?
The only issue raised by OP that would go away if it were managed by a US government bureaucracy instead of a private company would be people running out of coverage, and that only if healthcare were subsidized universally.
And to preempt the comments saying it doesn't have to be this way: it doesn't matter what if US government bureaucracies are incompetent by the design of politicians or by necessity, the point is that they are, and the idea that this case would be the exception is just wishful thinking.
The IRS and the USGOV in general is much more lax on preventing citizens from having free money. I get tax return refunds I shouldn't, plenty of people cheat the system and get away with it. For profit insurance companies are harder to cheat. If an insurance company refuses a claim, what are you going to do? go to another insurance company that will do the same thing? If the government refuses a claim, you can vote for the other guy. The government is comprised of "we the people", so it is in the best interest of the people for it to take place of insurance companies, which are certainly not comprised of "we the people".
You should also understand that I am not suggesting that insurance companies should be banned. If you don't like the USGOV subsidy, you or your employer can still subsidize private insurance for you. But now, insurance companies have to compete with the government!
I had Medicaid when I was an adult student. Worth pointing out that it was administered by the state of Colorado and not the feds, and was post ACÁ.
It was, by far, the best insurance I have ever had in the US. It was effectively a gold insurance plan with no deductible, a $2 copay, drug and dental coverage.
It was very easy to sign up for, and the paperwork was literally the exact same as buying marketplace insurance.
I found it to be a better experience, and better administered than any other American health insurance I ever had.
If I could have paid money to stay on it when I got a job I would have.
My brief insurance experience with Medicaid was the best I ever had. It was through State of NY. I happened to break my wrist during that time. It was easy to find a doctor, low/no copays or deductible, and they were comparatively easy to contact.
Every other insurance company I've dealt with has actively cost me money, time and unnecessary pain through ineptitude or beurocracy. My FAANG healthcare was good, but had relatively fewer health issues
Government support should start a few steps before payment and filing taxes. The solutions that would fix this problem are analogous with having free education instead of student loans
Now we've moved on from talking about direct government subsidy to talking about completely government-operated medicine.
And for that, I'd like you to point me to a state with government-operated medicine that doesn't have a therapist shortage. Because I'm hearing from several people in this thread that their countries have the same problems.
No we haven't- these problems aren't only reducible to a few categories (i.e., free market vs government operated). The shortage of therapists indicates at least an awareness of discontent among many people, and a desire for help (whether just listening, coaching, or deeper interventions). Those relationships used to involve family and friends, but we understand that a therapist is better suited because of better training and less conflict of interest. We don't need trained psychologists for all of those relationships, and much of it could be solved through other relationships that provide comraderie and fraternity- even in a racquet club, finding other people to help you understand the world and support you. That provides an alternative role for government to intervene, instead of the government-operated medicine boogieman. In this case, the government insuring that more people have leisure time to join clubs, go hiking, spend less pressured time with family and friends, would go a long way to improve the problem. That is a different approach from the financialization of cultural life that pervades most government approaches, but it would be much less costly and reap greater rewards
Next time, for comparison, choose a country where half of the political spectrum does not deliberately gimp goverment's ability to do things just to prove government can't do things.
We're commenting on an article from a US news outlet about the situation in the US. I wasn't going to start talking about a random other unrelated country when people are proposing solutions for this one.
Also, I attempted to preempt these comments. They're not clever or new or even particularly accurate:
> And to preempt the comments saying it doesn't have to be this way: it doesn't matter if US government bureaucracies are incompetent by the design of politicians or by necessity, the point is that they are
> I take it you haven't ever interacted with the IRS beyond filing the standard deduction? Or interacted with Medicare/Medicaid?
raises hand
I have! I've actually worked a shocking amount with the IRS, not because I'm a criminal but because I'm working class and wasn't educated on how to file taxes more complicated than a 1040-EZ, presumably because it was never expected I would make that much money or own my own business.
Strictly my experience, I would much, much rather deal with the IRS than my insurance company. Yes, they're intimidating at first, but ultimately every person I've worked with both at the IRS and my state agency has been calm, professional, and frankly to a degree I found surprising, extremely understanding about how badly I fucked up my taxes on a number of occasions. I was never treated like a criminal; they explained what I did wrong, how they found out, what I owed, and how to prevent those issues in the future. And I was given interest-free payment plans with a one-time administrative cost to setup, that I now pay monthly. I'll be fully 0'd out in about 2 years.
This contrasts sharply with my experience with my insurance company! My insurance company tries to get out of paying for every last thing they can manage. My dental insurance has a maximum pay out of a measly $5,000 per year, which seems completely backwards to every other insurance I have ever had, but what do I know. You know how fast you can crush 5 grand in dental work? And paradoxically it still has co-pays, so apparently I'm paying so they will cover most of some bills, up to a predetermined maximum. Additionally, since I own my own business, I do have the luxury of choosing my own insurance, which most people can't, and for that luxury I pay simply princely sums each month to insure both myself and my spouse. I've picked the best for my area (at time of comment) and have to spend many many days of unpaid labor every year re-evaluating that choice, both because circumstances and networks change coverages, and because every single year my insurance goes up despite both of us, by and large, being quite healthy, and I get fucking annoyed about it and want to see if I'm getting my money's worth. I wouldn't say I am by a long shot, but the alternatives cover less, and cost more, so I'm still paying.
Frankly, and I don't mean this as a personal attack against you, but I have to assume people who talk like you have never interacted directly with the IRS, and are instead absorbing that opinion through the same cultural osmosis I did, because I too was initially terrified to the bone when I got my first letter from them several years after starting my company, and honestly, they are incredibly over-hyped. The only way to truly get the IRS to take you to to task is to, for years on end, purposely try and weasel out of paying taxes.
I would LOVE, absolutely LOVE, the ability to get my healthcare funded via an organization templated off the IRS.
To be clear, I'm not talking about the cultural fear of the IRS, I'm specifically referring to the idea that patterning insurance after the IRS would solve most of the issues that OP brought up:
> - Have to deal with filing claims, which ultimately becomes an additional expense, since chances are you have to pay someone to do this for you.
> - Get your money later instead of now.
> - Have to keep meticulous notes in case you ever get audited by the insurance companies, who can refuse to issue payments if your notes don't meet their standards.
This description could be lifted up and dropped in to be describing my tax situation each year. Meanwhile, I've never interacted with the kind of nightmarish insurance companies that some people have, so I'm strictly comparing two relatively painful bureaucracies, not nightmare stories about either one.
>I'm specifically referring to the idea that patterning insurance after the IRS
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see anyone who brought up the IRS as a model example except for you. It seems like people are just talking more generally about steamlined than the current status quo experience, and there are so many ways to steelman that which have nothing to do with analogies to the IRS.
To your credit you did note that you wanted people to take you up on your suggestion of using only bad examples, but I don't think your insistence on that front holds water because this is the type of thing where the difference that makes the difference is going to be the very details you are asking everyone to gloss over.
I was responding to GP, who definitely did say they would love to use the IRS as a positive example:
> I would LOVE, absolutely LOVE, the ability to get my healthcare funded via an organization templated off the IRS.
I'm not at all sure what you're getting at with the rest of your comment, because it doesn't seem to relate to anything I actually said. I'm insistent that we be realistic about what a US bureaucracy will inevitably look like and not expect it to produce less red tape than is already present. I said nothing about glossing over anything.
Right but I think the point is that it is better at the end of the day. Since we're all sharing our anecdotes, I am familiar with someone who works in a municipality where their entire job revolves around billing and claims for EMS.
The amount of extreme cases of stonewalling, long holds, call transfers, inconsistent interpretations of policy, requests for faxes that get lost, requests for new paperwork, and general lack of urgency, across numerous companies in numerous states, is mind boggling, and easily an order of magnitude more extreme the IRS experiences I've seen shared here.
The issue is similar in Germany, where the vast majority has mandatory insurance: Too few therapists for too many people. Even in large cities you might wait months, if they even have waiting lists. It's much easier if you pay by yourself.
Afaik there are many therapists who are qualified and want to take public insurance (reimbursement rates are actually pretty good compared to those for MDs) but in the '90s there was a formula developed for how many therapists are needed per capita, and only that many therapists get licenses to take public insurance. Since the stigma around mental health was much higher then, demand now completely outstrips supply, and the competition for the licenses of retiring therapists is fierce.
Canada’s healthcare is managed at the provincial level. So you’re comment is pretty reductive and unrepresentative of many places.
This is my experience in BC as an American immigrant. It doesn’t apply to Toronto or Ontario.
Counselors are very easy to find. I had my pick and the wait was about a week. The province didn’t cover it in my case but my extended benefits did. Most of the ones I talked to offer pay scales based on extended insurance coverage, and many will provide pro bono care. Some counselors are covered by the province if you get a referral from a doctor.
The longest I’ve personally waited to see a general doctor is 6 hours at an ER on a weekend night, typically the wait is about an hour if you go to a clinic in the morning without an appointment.
For specialists, appointments are done on a triage system with a referral. If your case is urgent, or worsening you typically get seen asap. I’ve seen MRIs get done same day, or take as long as six months for non-urgent needs.
What I’ve never seen is someone wait a day with a broken arm to make sure they actually need to see a doctor because they can’t afford it. That’s something I saw twice in college in the states.
I’ve also seen people get referred to a specialist and never get seen because their insurance wouldn’t cover it.
Also seen people declare bankruptcy over medical debts in the states despite having insurance.
Canada’s healthcare system could be improved, but if you have ever dealt with low end insurance or uninsured healthcare in the states, you would understand how much better the system is here.
I'm guessing they don't. As a US person we hear a lot of, presumably insurance company sponsored, anti-Canadian-healthcare propaganda and then dumb people repeat it online.
That isn't what "directly subsidized" means, though, that's "directly run". A subsidy is a strictly monetary arrangement, not one where the government actually becomes the employer.
Tricare is perhaps the closest thing we have to direct government healthcare, it handles healthcare for active duty military, it is part of the DoD and contracts out to providers directly (including therapists) and compared to other private insurers they are among the most difficult to work with. My partner is an independent psychotherapist and contracts with various healthcare providers and Tricare has by far the highest rate of spurious rejections, short paychecks, heavy audit requirements, etc and their resolution department is the hardest to work with.
So we already have evidence of how it goes when the government manages it directly and it’s worse than private industry.
It would still be an issue. Even countries with socialized or heavily subsidized healthcare systems tend to have long waiting lists for therapists and strict limits on the number of sessions. Services are rationed everywhere.
in sweden it is almost impossible to find a psycologist. Many years of waiting and that is only if you are an extreme case. If you are just average depressed you can just dream about getting one in your lifetime.
>But very few non phd therapists practice evidence based medicine
That's a good point, although people don't seem happy to acknowledge it. In my metro area, the biggest providers of mental health services are aligned with religious organizations or outright promote themselves as offering religious based therapy. It's frustratingly hard to get evidence based treatment free from religious influence.
There are plenty of native English speakers in third-world countries. Presumably, some of them could become qualified (from a practical point of view, not a legal point of view) therapists. Therapy can be offered via telemedicine, over the internet. At least some of these people are far enough from US jurisdiction that they could probably offer this service to anybody who wants it over the internet, and just not care what foreign governments have to say about it. This feels like an easy way for people there to make relatively large (by their standards) amounts of money. Why isn't this happening yet?
Sure, if you just want someone to talk to. But most clinical psychologists are dealing with more severe cases. Would you want your suicidal teenager talking to a licensed therapist trained to deal with their case, or to someone overseas whose qualification is that they speak English?
The problem with this, and we see this in the US already with medical providers, is that even if they are 'native' speakers in their own country, they miss a lot of important nuance and conversational skills to work with US native patients. And that's before you even consider the cultural stuff that they just don't have a frame of reference to understand. Someone from a country where women don't have rights, or where normal things like divorce or abortion are illegal, isn't going to be able to offer useful therapy to someone from the US.
The amount of equity isn't as important as the vesting schedule. Don't vest anything to your cofounder right away. You should vest on a four year schedule with a one year cliff. There are good reasons this is the standard.
As far as the amount, make sure the other person thinks it's fair. If they don't find the split fair, then it'll just create issues later. Better to give away 49% of your company and have it succeed than to continue to own 90% and have it fail.
It isn't you. I have a solid resume (I know because I've interviewed hundreds of people in my career), but the market is just much slower. In 2020-2022 I was getting 5-10 recruiters reaching out every week. If I thought something was interesting, I'd respond saying that I'm not really looking for anything new, but I'm open to a conversation. People would still be thrilled to speak to me, even though I was upfront that I'd only leave for something perfect.
Lately, I get maybe one person reaching out every month. I responded to one last week, even though I'm not looking, just to see what the job market is like. I was ghosted.
I think we're just not in a hiring frenzy right now. People don't want to leave their jobs and risk it on something new. Some companies are laying off. For the companies that are hiring, they are probably seeing many more applicants and a higher conversion rate.
I'd bet that YC would love to fund fewer dev tools, but there's a bias towards who applies to YC in the first place. It's not that YC isn't well known outside of tech circles, but they are especially well known in tech circles, and that affects who applies.
They can choose what they fund right? There might be some element of "Kelly criterion" to it though, so if all you have is tech tool ideas, it is still worth investing an a proportion of them.
reply