I kind of love this, although I feel like I'd need to try it out to understand exactly how it feels. I'd even like to see a video if Zed could make one. It would be good to understand e.g. if the issue of "who wrote that?" actually affects things in practice, or any other weirdness or limitations.
I also kind of get why it's built into an editor! I wonder how it compares to e.g. https://www.coscreen.co.
The default method of remote work, with e.g. Slack and video meetings, I think leaves a lot of potential on the table. I wonder if a flexible collaboration system like this could actually be a lovely default method for many companies.
haha, not sure I agree with this one at all, I think a name is pretty far down the list of priorities for a business. I would be extremely surprised if "customers who started trials but then didn't use the product at all, but then later wanted to, but couldn't because they couldn't find the name" is a segment that moves the needle.
From this brief note, you sound like you potentially are trialling an order of magnitude more services than the average person. I bet that gives you a ton of interesting perspective on all these products, sign-up flows, etc, but probably puts you in a very unusual position with respect to product names!
This rings true, and I guess further backs up how important it is to carefully choose your initial customers, so the product is actually good enough by the time it gets to the broader swathe of companies. At least, that's my guess — I'm the one that failed after all!
I am surprised to hear you say this given your previous experience founding a product that from a distance might look to cover some similar space to retool but in practice is quite different. My perspective: only investors ever asked us about retool, not customers. Some of them even used retool tool. Hah even just typing this out brings me back to investor meetings!
a very generous comment! Very interesting you say that, I believe we did at some point have some thoughts about targeting B2B2C, but sadly that was one of the areas we failed to fully learn about / experiment / iterate on.
oh that's an interesting perspective. I would say you're right, and maybe I didn't phrase it well. I probably should have said something more like: if you don't know how, or if you can't learn how (through iteration etc), then how can your customers. Or something to that effect.
If instead I had supplied a time series for eight years ending just prior to all of OP's data, you wouldn't discuss "comparing" the charts (I assume!), so it's a little unclear what the concern is with comparison.
If you just need the last few data points, of course you can either just look at OP's chart, or if you don't trust that data, then quickly get the data yourself. Again you can even create an account on slight.run and recreate the full graph if you prefer.
I'm restricting to top-level comments here, because those seem like a better proxy than all comments (excluding some discussion on a given post for example).
I got 71.13647% on a first pass. So we want P(all 4 in 9) = 1 - P(not all 4), and we can split that out a few ways. To not get all four, we can restrict ourselves to three, so that's (3/4)^9, but there are four ways of doing that, so that's 4 * (3/4)^9. But that counts using singles and pairs too many times. Specifically each version of "three" can be exactly three balls, three ways of one ball, or three ways of exactly two balls ("1 or 2 or 3" = "1&2&3" or "just 1" or "just 2" or "just 3" or "1&2" or "1&3" or "2&3").
- We can then subtract 6 * P(two balls), so 6 * (2/4)^9. Now this counts singles a few times too, in fact it cancels all of them out.
- We then need to add back four singles, so 4 * (1/4)^9
I'm surprised to read this — while the examples could be more cleanly presented, I felt like the title for this post and the initial gif on landing show what this does reasonably clearly. I do see what you mean about the PRO part.
It’ll make some naive approaches work differently, but it’s overall more info: both the selection effect of what images humans share, and the surrounding context (eg what comments are people making about the image)
honestly yeah, I like living in density with other people around. It generally leads to more local businesses too: even if the number per-capita is the same, you get more choice, better opening hours etc.
Slight is looking for a frontend engineer to join us in making data operational within companies through data apps. We want data teams to build data apps to get data & graphs to their teams where they are, not where data tools want them to be.
The role page (https://www.slight.co/jobs/frontend-engineer) contains details about what we're building next. Caching, scheduling and triggers; a seamless Google Sheets integration; Python and R support; flexible permissions; building out our graphs. If any of this sounds up your alley, please apply!
- Location: Remote. We only require overlap in the morning of US Eastern time (10:00 - 12:00).
- Compensation: $140,000 plus equity commensurate with an early role
How to Apply: The role page will have more details, but essentially email whatever you feel best represents you (could be a resume, could be a project description and links, could be a website, any combination that suits you) to [email protected].
That’s not the rule from the question in the link nor in the original game (the game’s rule isn’t quite the same as the classic problem, it’s even messier). Your proposed rule doesn’t uniquely extend the original, it’s just one of the possible generalizations.
I also kind of get why it's built into an editor! I wonder how it compares to e.g. https://www.coscreen.co.
The default method of remote work, with e.g. Slack and video meetings, I think leaves a lot of potential on the table. I wonder if a flexible collaboration system like this could actually be a lovely default method for many companies.