Thank you! I have been trying to get some attention to this project. The submission last week was a Show HN for the Common Lisp source code which was open sourced only very recently. Thanks to the wonderful HN community, that post did get the attention I had hoped for.
I made another submission this week to show the live MathB.in website in action. That did not get any attention. Since the HN FAQ allows a small number of reposts if a post has not had significant attention in the last year, I thought of reposting the live website link once again today.
But how can that be? At the end of the day some consumer must foot the bill and cover all the additional costs of B2B services. Ultimately businesses are only comfortable paying others businesses because they found a way to make money (i.e. sell to customers, somewhere down the line)
I shitload of the economy is directly or indirectly government funded. In Australia defence, health/hospital/disability/aged/mental health care (even if private), education all levels (even private), public infrastructure and construction, and government owned enterprises (Australia Post/NBN etc.). They will get their funding through budget.
Something something quantitative easing and productivity gains from globalization and automation outpacing the half-life of these unprofitable wild goose chases
Some executive had the budget for it, it wasn't paid for out of his pocket. They can't get outcompeted by a more efficient competitor because every big business is like this. In some fields smaller competitors can eat their lunch, but the dinosaurs persist because they make so much surplus by being big. Hertz charges what, 3x what your local no-name car rental place charges for the same product? But a business traveller doesn't care because they're expensing it and just want whoever's got a spot at the airport.
I own a computer; my company buys a computer for me to do work. If the economy consists of mothing but people, companies, and computers, it'll be twice as big as you'd think it'd be.
Then, you need people to manage the computers — but now you need twice the number of people to do that than you think you would.
You need to ship computers, recycle computers, ...
The economy isn't zero-sum: I think the nonpeople economy is only limited by our ability to run companies, and there's no limit ti the wealth of a company? Maybe? I dunno...
USSR is not Russia. Afghanistan was a not a "core interest" or existential threat to any of the USSR nations.
If we use the Afghanistan analogy, Ukraine is on the border of NATO too. Interestingly, then NATO would be the overextended multinational entity trying to expand even further in this scenario. If we expect an "Afghanistan" scenario to repeat itself, then logically one would expect NATO to collapse.
In earlier comment you said: "Vietnam and Afghanistan .... Those were pure proxy wars. This is not a proxy war, it is a direct hot war."
And here you wrote: "This is not a proxy war. Russia is involved directly on its border. A proxy war is in a far off land." And I was saying that Afghanistan was not a far off land, it was on the border, so your two usages of "proxy war" weren't consistent.
Sorry, I don't understand your second paragraph, I was not trying to draw an analogy with USSR and Afghanistan.
As I understand, your argument is instead that: "Afghanistan was not important to USSR, so USSR did not consider using nuclear weapons then", while "Ukraine is a core interest of Russia, so it will rather start a nuclear war (and risk destruction of the world) rather than back down and return to the positions before Feb 24th."
I don't know if this statement is as obviously correct as it may seem to you. Certainly many believe that Russia is not willing to self-destruct to stand the ground here.
How convenient. What was Russia's excuse before NATO was created? Do you really think that if NATO did not exist that Putin would keep it in its borders?
> Putin wouldn't even be a thing, and modern world would be vastly different, if NATO did not exist.
You're right, it would be different. Russia would be all over the Baltics, Finland, parts of Poland and Romania, performing special peacekeeping operations.
> Excuse for what?
Excuse for attacking and occupying neighboring countries. Russia's track record goes back in history much further than 1949.
> Russia would be all over the Baltics, Finland, parts of Poland and Romania, performing special peacekeeping operations.
Maybe, maybe not. There would probably be no point in peacekeeping operations if there was no transcontinental military industrial complex as a factor for geopolitical destabilization.
> Russia's track record goes back in history much further than 1949
Considering the historic period you are referring to, Russian track record seems much more restrained then other superpowers rising in 20th century. Maybe you should be more specific?
You may attempt to apply the same analogy to drinking water, and see that it doesn't work.
If you drink as much as you want, then you'll probably drink too much (with whatever negative consequences arising as a result).
But, except for some extreme circumstances, I don't think people drink much more than is necessary to quench their thirst.
That is your conclusion might still be correct, but it doesn't follow from the analogy with eating.
The thing is, the experience of drinking water has not changed much compared to before. However, if you take all beverages, you'll see that lots of people drink too much soda, and it's not to quench their thirst.
Water has changed dramatically. Think of all that goes into modern sedimentation, filtration, and disinfection - not to mention treatments for hard water or additives like fluorine. The taste is better because of the mineral content, and we can even add carbonation!
You are conditioned to overeat because your body can store the excess energy in the event of future needs.
The body is expecting such a future need as in our past there were often periods of food scarcity. Since in our modern society this food scarcity doesn't exist, the body overconsumes, preparing for a future that will never come.
We do not have such a mechanism for storing infinite water, so we do not crave an overabundance of water.
I think you are thinking about sleep on the wrong axis. It is not whether it is a superstimulus; it is whether your body can store an abundance of it for a future anticipated need.
I would argue in this case, sleep is much more like water than food in this way in that there is a very small amount of sleep (possibly zero) your body can effectively stockpile.
Looking at their MRR growth, it seems that they had ~$5K MRR in Spring of 2020, at the time they joined TinySeed.
So perhaps a more technically accurate post would be: "How we bootstrapped to $60K ARR, then took a small investment and grew the company to $1MM ARR" ?
When, in the lifecycle of the company, can you sell a small stake of it and still call it bootstrapped? Basecamp sold a bit of equity in 2006 to Bezos[1], and is still considered the epitome of the bootstrapped company.
Additionally, if one has a couple hundred K after working at MANGA or wherever, or has wealthy parents/friends and uses that money to build their own start-up, is that still bootstrapping?
To me, their journey is much closer to bootstrapping, and is quite an impressive achievement. Congrats, guys!
According to the article linked above, it may have come from Jean-Jacques Rousseau Michele earlier, when Marie Antoinette was 10, and living in Austria. The actual quote may date back to the 1660’s.
But why do you submit the same link multiple times? I count at least 4 submissions in the past weeks.