I changed my last name when I got married, and at the time I had a work email address that looked like [email protected] on the company's Google Workspace. Given that oldlastname was no longer my name, I changed my email address to [email protected].
This worked fine in Google services and some of the many work applications using Google for auth, but some of them were using the email address as a global identifier in a way that broke down when I changed my name. The services that migrated successfully were using a more stable identifier that persisted despite the address change.
I think your view is too strongly assuming that everyone in the market is perfectly rational and perfectly replaceable with zero transaction costs..
Especially when you start talking about a single person company, it could be as simple as the founder being sentimentally attached to the company and continuing it despite making less than they could with other opportunities, but that doesn't mean that if the founder gets hit by a bus someone else will also be willing to take a sub-optimal gig. Or a company might currently be barely worth running with $20k a month in revenue, but if there is a period of turmoil and lost customers in the process of open-sourcing/founder getting hit by a bus/whatever that now the customer base would only bring in $10k a month, it's no longer profitable, and the market fails to find someone to run the company.
Others might care less about this than we did, but we were also thinking about popularity of names we were considering, including changes in popularity over time. There are names that feel very natural to me because they were common among my peers but that are actually pretty uncommon among children now and vice versa.
For the US, I found it helpful (and fun) to download the social security data on frequency of names for each year, so that I could then plot the popularity of a given name over time. This was also helpful for considering how unisex a name is or isn't.
My guess is that this is a funky artistic choice, and that they used to have a "normal" webpage.
I checked with the wayback machine, and it looks like my guess is correct. I clicked randomly into an archive a few years old, and here's 2016 website looking a lot more like what you describe http://web.archive.org/web/20160303191156/http://www.portuga... .
I guess an audience that you left out in your description is people appreciating the experience of looking at the website or the artist themselves wanting to make a statement. I think the band has thoroughly "made it" so to speak, and doesn't have to worry too much about most of what you mentioned. They do list tour dates in their google sheet and also can sell out pretty large venues easily, and I don't think there are any festival planners who don't know who Portugal, the Man who have any chance of nabbing them for their festival.
Yes, there are lots and lots of people who don't wash their hands with any regularity and others who don't wash them as often as they should. You can find statistics about the fraction of folks washing hands in a public restroom, or just watch for yourself the next time you're in a public restaurant or buying food from a restaurant with an open kitchen.
And yet, I've been to plenty of venues that were uncomfortably loud in back while not going to any (indoors, professionally set-up) venues that were uncomfortably quiet in back.
I think it's more than what you've described. I think it's that a lot of folks actually prefer dangerously loud volumes, and this contributes to a positive feedback loop of expectations for loud concerts. I wish most concerts were quieter, but I may be in a minority.
Do the same characteristics that make it the most regulated state also make it the state most likely to notice these hazards before other states do? If so, it wouldn't be very weird.
They don’t just feel like an ad, they are an ad. You might not interact with ads (I’m usually similar), but they may still get enough interaction to be worth it to YC.
Your comment is an interesting reflection to me of the expectations people have for cheap or free software. You were willing to invest your time and schedule into seeing this talk live, which for many people is a much larger investment than $10. My default assumption of folks on this board is that they're well-off tech workers, which would make it seem even starker in comparison to $10.
My comment isn't anything about you personally, and I've had similar reactions to even cheaper software. But it still find it striking when I think about it more.
That's a nice way to avoid scams, but the cost doesn't seem worth the benefits to me as someone who otherwise has good awareness about scams. I've made some nice friends off the internet and yet to fall for a scam, so it doesn't seem worth locking out that possibility of friendship just to reduce the odds of being scammed slightly more.
I could easily see giving very different advice to a friend with less scam awareness, though (like an older friend with limited knowledge of technology).
Were people actually paying $200 for a piece of productivity software, though? I'm no expert but sort of got the impression that a lot of the consumer-facing software currently charging $10 a month used to retail for 2 figures, not 3.
I would hope that random "non-government related non-profits" aren't using .gov domains. Isn't the whole point of the domain that it's just for government entities?
That also depends on the scale of the monetary sponsorship, though. If I heard something like "Meta/Google/Whoever is the main sponsor of Python for the next 3 years", I'd assume (perhaps incorrectly) much more money per year than it takes to hire a single engineer. On the other hand, someone just saying "sure, we'll do the silver tier at your next few conferences" is worth a whole lot less than one engineer.
Regardless, the previous commenter's point stands that the title could be a lot more informative.
Prices are much stickier for some products than others. There's a big difference between a lot of commodities being sold wholesale (oil or steel or whatever), products sold to consumers (cars or oreos), and services (especially ones with a personal touch or relationship like you mentioned).
I think it would take a lot of deflation for most salons to lower prices versus just delay future increases, but prices regularly fluctuate up and down at the grocery store or used car lot.
This is all fascinating! Thank you for sharing! If I can keep bothering you with questions (or if you happen to be able to point me to a place to learn more about harpsichord tuning), I have more questions. But I also understand if you don't want to keep answering them! Despite being someone who doesn't know much about nor listen to much music, I've always had a soft spot for harpsichords.
Why do harpsichords need to be tuned so much more frequently? How long did they take to tune (and how does that compare to tuning a piano)? How was the pricing structured with such a regular need? Were most of the harpsichords you were tuning in academic institutions, arts institutions, private use, et cetera? And not a question but another thought, I'm surprised there were even a handful of people tuning them in your metro area!
I have to ask out of curiosity, does this mean you worked full-time tuning harpsichords or rather that you did a lot of e.g. piano tuning and also occasionally tuned harpsichords? I'm hoping the former but expecting the latter.
This worked fine in Google services and some of the many work applications using Google for auth, but some of them were using the email address as a global identifier in a way that broke down when I changed my name. The services that migrated successfully were using a more stable identifier that persisted despite the address change.