I see the value here. The problem isn't just the search; it's the trust. The biggest hurdle for Zenode won't be the tech, but convincing an engineer that your AI's summary of a footnote is accurate enough to risk a $10,000 board spin. That's a high bar.
I'd argue the core value isn't just a better search or a faster reader. It's about providing a verified, reliable source of truth. This brings up a key tension: you say the AI isn't yet at your co-founder's level of accuracy, but is that precisely the level of confidence required to replace an engineer's manual check? How do you close that gap? You've got the data, but the trust factor is a different threshold?
I.e. maybe you've built the tool to make the problem faster, but the real win would be a tool that makes the problem safer? The killer feature might not be more speed, but rather a confidence score on every AI-generated fact, with a clear path to the source document so an engineer can verify it. It’s not about avoiding the document entirely; it’s about having a better starting point and knowing exactly what to double-check.
Agreed - trust is the key! That's why we've built in sources with links to the exact location in the datasheet and part documents where the AI found an answer. We're working hard to make sure you can trust its answers, but we know most engineers 'trust but verify'. A (transparent) confidence score is a great idea to improve trust in the answer and sources.
To close the gap, we've built our own Q/A datasets and are training custom AIs how to search and read a datasheet (like a new engineer needs to learn early on). We're concentrating on teaching the AI how to identify key information vs noise as it relates to electrical engineering (differences like 'Voltage' in the Absolute Max vs Recommended section) and where information is likely to be found in a datasheet or app note.
Searched for "innovator's dilemma" in the article, didn't find it.
The crux is not whether the extremely rich incumbent (google) will have better infrastructure, but whether that is the field of competition that matters.
They do. But there’s a line between arbitrary and fair. One of the things players want most is for outcomes to not be random/arbitrary and for skill to be judged fairly. That good shots are rewarded and bad shots penalized. The game already has a lot of that baked in so no need to make it more so.
TPC Sawgrass is the closest to a perfect pro course (PGA National second I guess) since it was designed specifically for it. I think a course perfectly optimized for pro play would be very different from what most people would expect.
descriptively: Apple has enough market clout so that it (implicitly) thinks developers will pay the time cost to overcome the lack of documentation and save apple the time it would take to write the documentation. The lever isn't good/bad docs, it's the market dominance apple has in controlling access to high-spend customers.
Similarly, MS was notoriously hard to dev on during MS's period of market dominance. It's a lot more dev-friendly now because it doesn't dominate as much anymore.
I had a terrible time trying to find react performance _monitoring_. There's plenty of performance _troubleshooting_ once you already know what component is slow, but nothing that monitors.
Did I miss something? I see some `measureLifecycleperf` functions in the react source but those look like dead ends.
Even if a worker sells only 10 percent of his or her stock back to the company, that worker agrees to give Mr. Kalanick the voting rights to 100 percent of his or her stock. Each share of Class A stock comes with one shareholder vote, while each share of Class B comes with 10 votes.
Uber had 545.8 million Class A shares at the end of last year, which included 43.4 million employee stock options that had been issued, according to financial statements obtained by The Times. If all of the early employees who owned those options sold even a small part of their stock to Uber, Mr. Kalanick could control the votes of up to 43.4 million shares, or an additional 7.9 percent of that stock class.
Uber also had 459.7 million Class B common shares at the end of 2016, which included 9.9 million employee stock options that had been issued. If all of the holders of those options sold even part of their stock to Uber, Mr. Kalanick could control the votes of up to 9.9 million shares, or an additional 2.2 percent of that stock class.
Mr. Kalanick does not control those votes until he issues something called a “voting notice,” which requires the employee to vote all of his or her remaining stock in accordance with Mr. Kalanick’s wishes on all matters submitted to a vote of stockholders, according to the agreement. If Mr. Kalanick issued such a notice to a Class B shareholder, the stock gets only one vote a share, which goes to Mr. Kalanick.
> Employees must follow the “instructions of Travis Kalanick,” according to the buyback agreement, “with respect to any and all matters” that are submitted to a shareholder vote.
Wow. I knew about the super-shares, but giving Travis (not even Uber's CEO but Travis personally!) control over the voting rights of any employee who sells any of their stock back to the company seems pretty fucked up. Is this done at any other company?
