We just came back from a month in India with our lovely 1.5 y/o twins. They honestly made the trip 10x better. Their awe and wonder really opened our eyes. And getting help is easy when you're around backpackers.
Arriving in India with a six-week-old child after an overnight flight taught me something about travelling with children: Problems evaporate.
Everyone was queuing for passport control — our whole flight and several others, probably close to a thousand people queuing in a very large room. One of the minders saw me carrying the baby and waved us out of the queue at once. Would we please go over to the VIP&Diplomat queue. So we did, and another minder waved us out of the queue again. No, we should not queue with the VIPs&Diplomats, we should go straight past that queue and be processed immediately. The whole thing took about a minute.
That was how the trip started and that was how the rest was, too. 10/10 would do again.
I wondered whether that's what you were doing... setting up a sneaky strawman comparison using "always" and "incredibly", which are everyday words and unremarkable because of that, but both words strong in literal meaning.
Out of curiosity - can you share if you received any new paying users through this Show HN, and if so, how many? I realize there's a 7 day trial so even number of trial signups would be interesting. Trying to gauge the HN effect for a product like this.
No, meaning it owns 1.4% of the global public equity market.
They have some $700bn in stocks. The market cap of the S&P 500 is $25tn. If they held US large cap stocks only they would have almost 3% of each one of the S&P 500 companies.
The article doesn't indicate how the villages were sampled.
Suppose a village has a birth rate of 8 babies a year (2 babies every 3 months). There's (roughly) a 50% chance the babies will be male and female, 25% chance that they're both female and 25% chance that they're both male.
That means that if you're sampling from a district that has 1,000 villages (with the average birth rate of 2 babies / 3 months, roughly the birth rate indicated by the article), one quarter of the villages will have 2 male babies - that's 250 villages with 0 female babies born in the last 3 months.
Not making any claims regarding foeticide in India - just saying that the way they chose the villages matters a lot.
Ah! That sort of proves the point, doesn't it? 25% of 694 is 173, which is even higher than 132 villages where there were no female babies. That means there are actually more female babies than you'd predict in advance. Or is my math wrong somehow?
The phrase "in area of India covering 132 villages" seems to imply that it's a compact region, and if that's the case the suspicion of cherry picking would lose foundation.
It would still be possible to find a compact subregion of a large region where no girls were born. However, the fact that it was 132 villages makes this seem unlikely, unless the large region contained many thousands of villages.
You don't have to guess, it's right there in the first sentence of the article. There have been 216 births, so about 1.6 per village, which makes having zero female birth statistically normal in each village individually, but possibly not over the whole area if these villages are all in the same area.
no girl in 216 birth is a probability of 1/(2^216) : it's either cherry picking or criminal. The article is ambiguous on the way the villages were identified ("a red zone" ???).
I know that was probably a random percentage, but for a different perspective a 0.001% chance of an airline crash would still result in an accident each day just because of the sheer amount of air traffic, and that's just for one of the world's more "exotic" modes of transport. In a world of 7 billion people things that should happen extremely rarely still happen every day/month/year only because the dice get rolled so often
If I flipped 216 coins, the exact sequence that I get back also has a probability of 9e-66.
If I flipped 532 coins, the probability that I get any specific subset that share the same side is the sum of all probability that gives that result.
What we know is that 132 out 694 villages, with the average number of born children for 3 months being 1.6, had zero girls. The other 562 villages with unknown average of children had girls. As such we can conclude that the probability must be the sum of all sequences of births that results in 132 out of 694 villages having exactly no girls born under the period of 3 months.
The probability of the 132 villages is thus undefined as we simply do not have enough data on the spectrum of sequences. Based on the global census of 943 females per 1,000 males we can suspect a bias and create a ball park guess, but there is simply not enough to say an exact number like 9e-66.
I completely agree, but would like to note a common fallacy following this logic.
If my hourly rate is $20, I might think that a $200 phone is worth 10 hours.
The thing is, the majority of those $20 I make are probably already allocated to things like rent, food, transportation and so on. If those things account for 50% of my expenses, for example, the $200 phone is actually worth 20 hours of my time. (That is, unless all my necessities are already accounted for, and I'm working 10 hours on top of what I usually work to buy the phone.)
It's important for freelancers to account for what is essentially their "operating expenses" when making purchasing decisions.
Indeed. I use something instead called "savings rate". How much per hour of the money I make is not spent in basic stuff? I also go one step further. In calculating this savings rate, i add to the 40 work hours, much more that are spent for work and/or are not actually free time: commuting, dressing for work, shopping basics, washing dishes/clothes, ... etc. From there you get the real non-free-time-cost of anything non-basic you buy. Turns out things are much more expensive than they actually seem like.
If you earn twice as much one month, you don't spent twice as much on rent, groceries, or commuting that month. You do spend more than twice as much on tax, probably should spend twice as much on savings and pension contributions, and probably will spend twice as much on living large.
So surely it's important to account for the marginal cost of spending money, but not operating expenses?
It's worth noting that Jeff Bezos has a lot to gain from publishing these threats. While publishing the descriptions of the photographs may sting, publishing the photos themselves would hurt a lot more. Now that he's made the accusations public, AMI could not plausibly publish the actual photos.
I don't see how much public availability of such photos could hurt him. He's already divorcing. He probably had to accept many humbling things about himself over last few years.
The only thing those photos would change is undeniably confirm that richest man on the planet has actual human male body and some love life, which pretty much everyone already suspected.
Some people will get a kick of it but it will eventually blend into the background same as fappening or a photo of a hole in the sock of president of world bank.
They won't publish them. But I'll guarantee you they will anonymously leak out on the internet. There is no way to prove they are the only people with these photos. (and they of course aren't the only ones)
Can Bezos get a US court to impound the photos? Something akin to the UK 'super injunction'?
That would make being caught leaking the photos perjury. The stakes are so high that AMI might well not dare to do that.
Its easy to imagine that Bezos, whatever he is saying publicly, is also getting excellent legal consul privately and that two can play at the games that AMI is so infamous for.
Why? Because he doesn't want everyone to know that he has a penis?
The kind of people who care about "celebrity gossip" will have no idea who he is, and the people who do know who he is won't care. There is no market for these photos.
We all hate when the big guys use lawsuits to stifle the little guys, but getting AMI execs tied up in legal worries and costs seems, in this instance, to have popular appeal?
Revenge porn laws seem like a valid counterpoint to the Streisand Effect. Even without that, you’re going to share his nudes just because he doesn’t want you to? Gross.
All 50 States have statutes that allow for preliminary injunctions... If Bezos filed a lawsuit he could absolutely seek a court order restraining AMI from publishing the photos pending the outcome of a lawsuit. See, for example: https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=7.40.020
You are giving too much credit to dirtbags. These photos will be routed to persons that are 45th degree from him and released aka leaked for free. Don't underestimate the power of revenge :|
I'd love to hear more about perceived opportunities in legal tech. For some reason, the legal industry seems very averse to change, but I'm sure that's not always going to be the case. (Lawyer here).
I've consulted for companies trying to get a good go to market plan for the legal sector.
The sector is bonkers and the incentives are terrible. Most tech adoption is in the low-margin high-volume sectors, where 'good enough' products are dominant. Superior execution in this segment could lead to big wins. In the low-volume high-margin sector, many firms have proprietary workflows/inhouse staff dealing with their KM needs.
That said, there's a few cute 'novel' approaches in new generation TAR and AI assisted [Insert mass document type sorting/classifying/digesting]. Beyond that I think the big developments aren't going to be in the area of 'can technology do something fundamentally new'. They'll be enabling tools to allow new business models. Think 'data-science consulting, reporting and expert witness testimony for legal discovery databases'.
I also think that overall, professional development tools are underdeveloped, but young lawyers are undercapitalized and the core value bottleneck in low-volume work is the client intake pipeline, not getting good people to do the work.
The legal industry is not averse to change, the challenges are
1. Law is highly interpretable, it can't be just 1/0. Facts are 1/0, but not the law
2. Law firms tend to be small in size, generally <200, Lawyers are inclined to start their own practice ASAP. That limits the software provider's capability to charge more or upsell. Also, the law firms can't afford to buy a lot of software.
3. The distrust among people in the legal industry is just baffling
There are a few more challenges, but am able to recollect only a few.
(am a software engineer and my brother is a lawyer. we keep trying to build solutions for law firms)
I think this has a lot to do with perceived value and complexity from the side of the developer.
For me: I don't know the first thing about law and the perceived value of building something in that space is low compared with, for example, healthcare, where I feel like a lot of people can more easily see the benefits on real people.
I think if you can clearly define the areas where either the perceived value (for the developer) is really high or the perceived complexity is relatively low, that's where you'll see the next developments in this space.
I'd be curious to know where you think these areas are.
Not OP, but gonna pipe in as a Jerusalemite: in Israel, being a foreigner is almost a default state. Consider that a very significant portion of the population only came in the last 30 or so years, and a vast majority of peoples’ ancestors only came in the last century. It’s a relatively new country. From a more practical standpoint, there are large English speaking communities all over & most Israelis are very fluent English speakers.
Spot on! Jerusalem is great: perfect weather, incredible people, easy access to nature, lots of culture all around. Only downside is it’s getting a little expensive - in Israel, second only to Tel Aviv and the surrounding area.
Can anyone shed some light into this? Why do companies turn down YC after being accepted?