dternyak

ServiceBell | Live chat reimagined with video chat | Remote | Full Time (Contract) | https://servicebell.com | https://jobs.polymer.co/servicebell/27137

ServiceBell is building the next generation of live chat, reimagined with video chat. We're looking for a senior, frontend leaning full-stack engineer to help us execute on our roadmap in advance of our public launch. The contract duration will likely be for 1-3 months, with the potential to convert to full-time depending on how things go!

We have a modern, React/Typescript/Redux(toolkit) based codebase, where you'd be helping us translate designs into beautiful, functional UI for our amazing customers.

If you're at all annoyed by chatbots and want to help create a better alternative, consider applying!

Feel free to email me at Daniel AT servicebell.com with any questions, or apply on Polymer: https://jobs.polymer.co/servicebell/27137

Thanks!

How do we get in touch? :)

ServiceBell | Remote/Austin | Senior Founding Software Engineer

Hey HN! I'm Daniel, the Founder of ServiceBell.

We're the virtual service bell for your website. Our mission is to re-create in-store quality experiences, online. Think Intercom, but Video.

We're an early stage, funded Enterprise B2B Software company. Despite being pre-launch, we've seen sustained 50%+ average MoM growth, and already have meaningful MRR.

We're looking to bring on a senior, product minded engineer to our team of 4.

Visit https://jobs.wrkhq.com/servicebell/20762 to learn more, or just shoot me an email (daniel AT servicebell com)

ServiceBell | Founding Software Engineer | REMOTE | getservicebell.com

At ServiceBell, we take "being there for your customers" literally. We’re building a virtual service bell for the web, to help agents greet website visitors over live video chat.

We've just closed our Seed round and are hiring our founding team. We're looking for a senior full stack engineer to join our team of 3. You’ll be a co-owner in our product, and moreso, in our business.

Reach out to us to learn more: daniel AT getservicebell.com

https://jobs.wrkhq.com/servicebell/20762

In our current capitalist economy

Hasn't this always been the case, for all of humanity's existence?

"Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat from it"

Have there been any benchmarks done on the websocket side of FastAPI specifically compared to flask-socketio? Especially when scaling horizontally and needing to synchronize across many socket servers?

We're building out a product that will maintain large numbers of simultaneously connected sockets, so the "performance" pitch here is pretty compelling.

Nice! My first internet fight. Exciting.

It's not just 3000 people. My comment is relevant for entities like pension funds, mutual funds, hedge funds, insurance companies that have to allocate their float, conglomerates like Berkshire hathaway, and those "negligible" 3000 people that account for probably a quarter or higher of personal investment.

I think this is true, but only to a point. It's certainly true when the comparison is 10K to invest vs 10M, as liquidity of markets is not yet a concern and the investor with 10M is suddenly "accredited", can afford to pay a financial advisor, etc.

However, at 10M vs 10B, the 10M investor is much better off. Liquidity becomes a real concern - there's just not that many assets or stocks that can support that kind of allocation.

Small, nimble investors can usually outperform large funds simply by being able to fully enter into positions where larger funds couldn't.

If I was a shareholder of FAANG (I'm not), I wouldn't be very excited about them taking on very unprofitable tasks like solving humanity's urgent problems.

Yes, this is true in the sense that investor's did actually receive returns, but I was talking about the fund as a whole not actually generating any returns.

I'm pretty sure FAANG pays quite a lot in payroll tax, property tax, and they also ensure that FAANG employees pay quite substantial income tax, property tax, and sales tax.

How do you understand that the entire world was communist until 10,000 years ago?

The natural order of the world appears to more closely resemble capitalism via the "eat what you kill" philosophy.

I imagine you are imagining close-knit tribes that would share resources freely internally. If so, would you agree that tribe members that leech off of the tribe and don't contribute were likely expelled from the group?

We certainly all do seem to have this innate fear of being abandoned by our group, so I think it's fair to say that we're adapted to avoid this outcome.

I don't think this analogy holds. In the Madoff example, returns were quite literally only on paper, as they were fabricated out of thin air.

As someone who runs ads on Facebook, I can tell you that we saw an immediate lift in revenue and profitability as soon as we started. Internally we actually believe Facebook is misattributing Facebook driven purchases to the low side, as various ad blocking tools like uBlock may be interfering with this attribution matching.

For the Madoff analogy to hold, Facebook would have be going to our site and making just enough purchases to convince us to continue to run ads on Facebook.

From the view of the business, I couldn't care less of how many fake accounts are on Facebook. As long as money in < money out, we're going to keep running ads on Facebook.

edit: much like they do from church

If you want to actually help the economy you helicopter drop stimulus checks.

I think this is a bit simplistic. This is also how you get hyperinflation.

Perhaps the government should just have a clean separation from money, much like they do from state?

Just to play devil's advocate, why shouldn't we in fact allow algorithms to determine how to allocate capital?

Legendary investors like Warren Buffet use "value" investing as a methodology to drive returns. Isn't that an algorithm?

With this logic, most of the world is exhibiting deeply ingrained magical thinking by honoring 3000+ year old commandments like "You shall not murder".

Just because an ideology is honored and held in high esteem by its adherents (and to steelman your argument - even in higher esteem than it may deserve) does not mean we have better alternatives to the ideology.

How do you handle browsing? Does Cohere only work with SPAs? Do you inject turbolinks or something similar to prevent resets of the execution environment when users navigate between pages?

DAI is stable(ish), so there's no effective tax liabilities since your cost basis will always market price.

The tax issues come up if you're storing BTC (or other alts), not DAI.

Yup, this gets it right.

As a thought experiment, imagine someone builds a real, functional money printer in their basement and dialed it to print 10% of current M1.

Would prices at the grocery suddenly skyrocket? Obviously not. Even though the money printer is running, and the money supply has grown, no one really knows about it. Even if a press release was put out about the increase in M1, there would likely not be CPI inflation (putting aside any concern about the money printer itself).

Now, to take the example further, let's say the owner of the money printer started buying up real estate with the cash. Would you see CPI? Still, no. You'd probably see some inflation in the local areas where the real estate was being purchased, if it was done in sufficient volume.

Now, to bring the argument to a close, what if you started buying junk bonds and securitized mortgages? Would you see CPI inflation? No. Would you see asset price increases? Yes, probably. It would be hard to correlate the asset price increases to the money printing, which might be the point. Mortgage originators can start climbing the risk ladder now that the money printer is buying up all these securitized mortgages, and companies can also behave in more risky ways and know that they'll get the financing from the money printer. Increased risk can drive an increase in earnings, which will be rewarded with stock appreciation.

With the money printer stepping in and providing loose financing, the cost of money goes down. Now, previous money lenders have a harder time getting yield, and may climb the risk ladder as well to find the yield they need. This will also be seen in asset appreciation, across bonds, stocks, real estate, & more.

If your customer is someone who previously had a team doing manual data entry, this pricing certainly leaves a lot on the table. I would imagine most customers being happy to tolerate a 10x increase in price without breaking a sweat, assuming there's no one else in the space offering a cheaper solution.

Nothing good comes from shame.

While this may seem harsh at a surface level, are you really sure nothing good comes from shame? Is shame always an unhealthy emotion to experience? It seems to me that it is effective in focusing attention on potential personal misjudgement or misbehavior, and can strengthen resolve to break bad habits or otherwise ensure a better outcome for oneself going forward.

Of course, I'm familiar that the U.S. exports goods as well. Certainly the relationship specifically with China is one of a large and continuous trade deficit.

However, the broad intention of my previous comment is to illustrate that the narrative being that the U.S. is simply one of purchaser is lacking, or else if that narrative is correct, it will not be true for much longer once the trading partners catch on.

The rest of the world buys US treasuries cause we buy their goods. China buys treasuries because we buy goods with dollars. China has to do something with the dollars.

It strikes me as extremely odd that it's become so normalized that the U.S.'s role in trade is simply as a buyer of goods.

In any transaction, both parties are typically better off after having made the transaction, else one party would refuse.

The U.S. clearly benefits by acquiring goods, but is China really left scratching their heads with what to do with the dollars (and then throwing a dart and purchasing treasuries with their overflowing dollars)?

If China (in aggregate) is never interested in buying our goods, why would they want to compound the number of tokens that can be redeemed for future goods (by buying bonds)? Do they simply not want to buy goods now, but know they will want to in the future? Are they entirely interested only in the assets, but think the goods are not valuable, or at least not valuable for them, but maybe are for others? Doesn't that put into question the value of any assets the country might have to offer if the goods that the country provides are seemingly undesirable?

Clearly, the value the U.S. is providing can't simply be as the purchaser of a good. The U.S. is trading future obligations for current goods, and the trading partner must have some belief that they will eventually execute that option on future obligations, or trade the future obligation to someone else who will want to execute it, else this token clearly has no value.

However, I do also wonder how much of the demand of U.S. dollar is simply a system of inertia. At some point the trading partners may realize they have no interest in acquiring tokens that they will never redeem, even if this token can be compounded further for more tokens that will never be redeemed. Currently, it seems China is interested in acquiring these tokens because of the reserve currency status, as they trade with other partners in.

The other possibility is this entire narrative is incorrect, and there are other benefits to running massive trade surpluses beyond the future token redemption. Skill building could be one these benefits - the deficit trading partner (U.S.) is shaping the development of labor markets in an journeyman-like form.

I can't imagine why the tour guide would be offended – head scarves are by no means out of place in Israel, or anywhere in the region. Many Israelis that I know are thrilled about the trend towards stronger diplomatic ties (and with that, peace) in the region. Israel has previously made big concessions for diplomacy, like giving up the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt in the Egypt–Israel Peace Treaty.

The next fragment, "else they'll have to declare bankruptcy", is pretty much the answer. And as we learned in 2008, they're also "too big to fail", so that won't be happening.

This is a bit of an unorthodox take, but I think there are actually no schools or institutions more broadly that are truly "a-religious".

After reflection on my own experience going through the public school system, I've realized that the absence of the prototypical religion in public schools did not by any means remove "proselytizing and indoctrination". Instead, a sort of undefined religion has emerged, that we'll likely only be able to encapsulate in the rear-view mirror of history.

The most obvious form of proselytization, to me, was the constant preaching about college. While a rabbit-hole on its own, college attendance has not been leading to good outcomes for many of its attendees in recent times, and seems to have been an unquestionable tenet.

Simply put, secular public schools are not devoid of proselytizing and indoctrination. Why withhold taxpayers the option to choose their preferred form of indoctrination for their kids?

I agree with the general free market ideas behind this argument, but I would go further and question why the 30% is considered price gouging.

To compare, Envato (you may know them better as Themeforest), charges 55% as their "Non-Exclusive Author" fee: https://help.author.envato.com/hc/en-us/articles/36000047294...

It seems to me that if Apple (or Google) had decided to charge 20% initially, the claim might be that 20% is price gouging and maybe 5-10% could be considered fair.

Since HN won't allow links in the text field of a submission, I'll re-paste them here for convenience:

https://grants.zfnd.org/

https://www.zfnd.org/blog/zf-grants-is-ready/

I'd love to try this out! My email is my username at gmail.