ekpyrotic

Non-paywall version: https://www.removepaywall.com/search?url=https://www.ft.com/...

Non-paywall version: https://archive.ph/bEbhJ

Non-paywall link: https://archive.ph/7yuc1

In spite of all the various potential high-tech solutions -- i.e., Google Lens -- I would strongly advise just contacting an antiques brooch specialist. They will know where to look, or may even know the crest from taking an immediate look.

I love the power of technology to make knowledge accessible, but sometimes I feel that we forget that deep expertise exists in people too. There will be someone -- if not a couple of people -- have have likely spent their full life /only/ learning about Bavarian brooches.

This might just be the 'first arrow' from the SEC with much more to be added down the track, but it's interesting to see that they have gone in heavily on defrauding equity investors in the FTX business -- rather than pulling the rug on customers.

Either that's because it's easier for the SEC to prove, and get it to the point of demonstrating fraud? Or the US customers and the FTX US business were relatively untouched throughout this whole process, so there is less to go on for US customer fraud?

Or, perhaps, this is just the first arrow to smoke out more data, informants, etc, with a strategic view to adding further allegations down the track?

It is much safer to get bad news out in your own voice than risk that it leaks some other way, either through a journalist reporting on it or, even, an employee breaking the story on social media.

If the company doesn't get on the front foot to control the narrative, they will wake up to an email from a journalist saying that they are writing an article about 30pc cuts.

At that point, the journalist is likely to have heard the news -- and largely written the story. The company will be able to provide a quote, but by that point they will have lost control of the narrative. They won't be able to put their own headline on it -- as the start-up has done with this blog post.

One story becomes two. Becomes three. Becomes four. Etc. Then a media narrative sets in that the company is on the way to bankruptcy, etc, etc. Investors start calling the CEO, etc, etc.

I know that people find these types of announcements cringe and think that PR is a waste of time. But there is a reason most companies use this playbook: it is safer and it works (most of the time).

For the avoidance of doubt, this isn't a justification for all the language and messaging in this announcement, but a broader justification of the general strategy of communicating openly and in your own voice when you have bad news.

Non-paywall version: https://archive.ph/hsX38

"Of that total, $1 billion went to Bankman-Fried in the form of a personal loan, while $2.3 billion went to an entity he controls, Paper Bird (Bankman-Fried has told Forbes that owns 75% of the entity, with Wang owning the rest)—so that’s another nearly $1.73 billion at Bankman-Fried’s disposal."

Even these accounts are deceiving.

The current holdings are valued at today / yesterday's spot rate.

Given that many of these holdings are in (comparatively) thinly traded alt-coins, as soon as you try to dispose of these levels of coins / tokens, the price will fall as supply overwhelms demand.

Of course, this is represented by the fact that many of the alt-coins are marked as relatively illiquid -- and SBF has put a lackadaisical disclaimer at the top about the shifting price.

But the reality is that regardless of how long you wait -- or how much you try to spread the disposals -- you will only ever get a percentage of the current spot rate, given the impact that the sales will always have on the price itself.

I can't shake the feeling that SBF might say... "Yes, but once we have reassured the market, etc, etc, these alt-coins might recover in value -- and then we can dispose at this level."

And, of course, the merry-go-round starts again.

Non-paywall link: https://archive.ph/KFj4f

Non-paywalled link: https://archive.ph/Eto1K

Here is the link to the court filing: https://cases.stretto.com/public/x191/11749/PLEADINGS/117490...

Non-paywalled link: https://archive.ph/dqtbq

That wouldn't capture the main driver of population decline for most these countries.

Seems like the primary cause in most cases is /not/ the fact that deaths are outpacing births but, instead, that emigration is outpacing immigration.

Most of these countries are low-income nations in the EU whose workforce is now leaving to flock to higher-income countries.

We're basically seeing a brain drain in EU countries that need that workforce most to drive future growth. One of the unintended consequences of EU membership.

Huge well done on launching.

I can see a significant amount of scepticism in the comments, and I think that much of the feedback is valuable and important, such as the lack of a 'point of difference', interface, value-add above existing solutions, etc.

But, a little disappointed with the pessimism in the comments in general. Someone has gone out of their way to build something from scratch and, regardless of whether it ticks all the boxes at the moment, I think that deserves positivity and a big 'well done'.

Projects rarely ever launch 100pc perfect -- or even 20pc perfect. It is best to launch, adapt, and iterate.

Note to poster: try to imagine that all the comments here start with 'Well done for launching, but something you might want to think about is...' Lots of the points are valid and require your attention, but they have been presented in a defeatist and negative way -- as if your launch is the end of matter and, as a result, it is all doomed to failure rather than providing a springboard to change, improve, and pivot as required.

This is from the author's perspective, which just feels wrong. It doesn't feel natural. I cannot believe anyone would feel 'caught out' by the student-professor exchange. The scope of the project was a little vague, and the research team would just shape it as it went along.

The 'gotcha' moment just doesn't exist here; the awkwardness sounds like something that was artificially perceived on the student's side. In any usual situation, the professor would say... "sure, but we're going to do it anyway" or "sure, but we'll expand scope" or, more likely yet, "sure, but we'll work it out as we go along".

With respect to the retraction of the offer, it is more likely to be because either: 1) the research team failed to organise bits and pieces in time, shifting priorities, or just didn't fully commit to the project in the first place; or, and I hate to say this, 2) the exchange revealed that the student was a little socially awkward, which they took as a red flag.

I think it is unfair that FooBarWidget's comment is being downvoted.

I have no dog in this fight, but the HN rules state that you should not downvote a comment only because you disagree -- but, instead, because it does not add value to the discussion or is not constructive.

Just keen to protect HN from downvoting less popular views.

Because the goal of SEO is to be found on Google. If someone is searching on Google, they are already aware of it.

Artem, do you know if there is a parameter for ordering the RSS results by time for the Google News RSS results? This is very helpful.

Finally, I pay $2000+ annually for a competitor to NewsCatcherAPI. It may be worth connecting. I signed up for a trial earlier and the two issues for me would be (i) the range and depth of publications and (ii) not being about to track mentions / references in the body of the article.

I may not be your target audience but one of your competitors is pulling in 10m articles with the full article content per day. I use the API for timely alerts for PR monitoring -- my priority is that I pick up mentions of companies / individuals wherever they happen quickly.

Your pricing is a lot more competitive. I just wonder whether you are looking to move in the direction of range and depth in the future, or whether you're targeting a different market segment.

Key quote for me: "As an industry, we must be more careful about how we use these terms, and only call something AI when it genuinely is AI. If we continue to apply the term AI to everything, regardless of whether it is true AI, we risk business decision-makers dismissing it as empty hype that cannot solve their actual problems. It will start to look like marketing puffery."

You should be able to sell Jarvis to PR, marketing, and communications companies -- at a price point much higher that you're currently selling on your homepage.

Have you conducted any cold emails/sales call campaigns to those clients? I'm pretty sure you could find buyers at $100/month, if not more. I see the immediate value.

How have you been marketing this so far? What audience have you been targeting? What routes have you been using, i.e., PPC, direct outreach, cold calls?

I would be interested to work on this with you: j@greenaway.me

When will The Paris Review run interviews with leading bloggers and other online-first writers?

This is important because they are missing the vast swathe of content that is produced in this day and age. I wouldn't be surprised if 80, 90, or even 95 of written content was digital only these days.

All in all, I think it is time for The Paris Review to interview a writer who is known primarily for their online-only content.

I find it interesting that many of the established literary magazines still haven't extended the definition of literature to capture blogging and tweeting as new forms of media.

They do a good job of including journalism, comedy writing, poetry, and short fiction. But they never extend their interviews to new forms of online-only or online-native writing.

Is there is any justification for stopping the definition of literature short of blogging, tweeting, Tumblr'ing, etc?

There are two that come to mind. Firstly, that The Paris Review considers these forms of media too new. I, of course, understand that it takes a while for the establishment to feel comfortable with new things. But, honestly, online media isn't that new anymore. It was new 20 years ago, but certainly not today.

Secondly, perhaps someone might say that online media is mostly functional and non-creative -- or that it's not a forum for creative media. Surely, that is true for much online writing -- but so is it true for offline writing.

Finally, it feels funny to say that creative writing can exist on some platforms, like Twitter. But, why? Because they are short-form? Doesn't that still give writers the room to produce hyperconcentrated creative forms? Haiku are short -- are they not creative, and worthy of the term 'literature'?

Here's a link to the scientific paper referenced in the article itself: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.01103v1.pdf

The key practical findings are in Section 9 on page 10.

Hi Hugh -- thank you for sharing this. Fantastic idea, and there is definitely legs to it. In fact, I think I have searched for something similar in the past in the UK, but couldn't find it.

This is perfect for me, and I love the idea. It's definitely a service that I would use. However, for some reason, I didn't end up signing. That got me thinking about the consumer psychology of my behaviour. I half entered by credit card details, then thought "Hmm. Do I really need this?"

I'm sure I'll eventually come back and sign up, but I thought it would be useful to take you through my thought process. Of course, consumer behaviour isn't always rationale, and I may be diagnosing my behaviour wrong, but I thought it would be useful to you -- and, perhaps, other people in any case. It's also useful for me to analyse my behaviour, and see if I can learn something from it.

There is a critical moment when people, for whatever reason, decide to buy a product. Something coalesces -- and we make a decision about buying. I'm sure it's a complicated tangle of (mainly) emotional but also rational reasons. I've always believed that understanding that moment is a key to online business success. How do you create a webpage that is conducive to bringing about a buying decision? Gives the consumer the psychology security to commit? Inches them over the line?

I thought my behaviour on your website was interesting because all the rationale cues were there -- I wanted the service, I like reading business books, I like the ideas of getting one delivered to my door every month. I liked the FEATURES. But the emotional side left me cold. Or I think that's what it was.

Here's my after-the-fact rationalisation:

The website only sells the functional features of the product. It doesn't talk to the type of person that I want to be and identify as.

After half entering my details, I thought... "Is this payment worth the service?" I ended up saying to myself "Actually, I can just go around the corner and picking up a business book myself."

Instead, if I have viewed the buying decision as affirmation of my identity, then I think I would have gone through with the purchase. I wouldn't have viewed the purchase as an monetary exchange for the functional features that you are selling (book delivery), but as a statement of my identity (I am the type of person who reads business books, is ahead of peers on business theory, and is looking to always learn and improve himself).

So, what changes might that analysis suggest...

+ probably the introduction of some messaging around "A bookclub for CEOs, founders, and other ambitious entrepreneurs";

+ probably a testimonial from someone I would like to identify with;

+ I would go bigger on the monthly newsletter. It is not only a newsletter, but the membership of secret UK community of entrepreneurs, and other people who are trying to build and scale businesses.

Anyways. Sorry to hijack your post with a 1,000-word self-interested stream of conscious post. -J

Terry Gross interviewed Nixon biographer Tim Weiner on her show Fresh Air. It's worth listening to. From prolonging the war, to starting the drug war for political gain, Nixon was a real jerk.

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/06/15/414615...

Can this handle file uploads as a forward? Or do you have any plans to include that functionality?

1. Networking is actually a very bad way to secure initial customers. It is very unlikely that you are going to find yourself in a room with your target customers. You'll end up wasting time and energy on people who are never going to use your product.

2. Develop a persona for your target customer. Make it tangible so you can imagine your end-user. Imagine how they go about their days. What their interest are; what their hobbies are. What they do in the morning; what they do at night. Their fears and challenges. What is the challenge that your product is solving for these people?

3. Now, you should have a sense of who you want to reach. It might be quite a broad category... 'Heads of Business Development in start-ups', 'Design freelancers on PeoplePerHour'. At this point you should be in a position to think about where you might be able to find lists of these people. Go niche, so you don't overreach. It's easy to capture a small market than a big one. Start small, and grow to new markets. Maybe, if you're building a freelancer website, it'll mean dialing down your target market to 'design freelancers in Aspen'. Try to find a directory of people online that meet this category.

4. Create a database of all these people. Only start with 100. It should have their names, companies, email addresses, and a notes column. Fill all this data in. This is a list of potential early adopters.

5. Draft these people a short, targeted email laying out in CLEAR and DIRECT language your valuable proposition. 'I spotted your were a design freelancer in Aspen. I'm building... I thought you might be interested because... Is this something you might want to use?' Follow up a week later with an even shorter note for people that didn't reply. RESPECT their details. Don't spam them. This is a PERSONALISED message.

6. You will receive two responses (a) 'yes' -- that's great, you have an early adopter; track their use of the service and value them; (b) 'no' -- that's even better, ask them why they don't think it's a good fit for them; ask them for feedback; why isn't it attractive; what would make it attractive?

7. Fill in your database with all these responses. After you have 20-50 responses, you have some important intelligence about whether you have built a product which ACTUALLY solves a market problem (i.e., you have market fit); if not, pivot -- build a product that responds to these people's feedback.

8. Rinse and repeat.

Sorry for the plug... people have told me that the most time consuming bit of this process is finding these people and their emails. That's why I built Find Emails Team. You can find it here: http://findemailsteam.com. For a few dollars, we can put a manual team to work to find these contact details for you.

Best of luck!

I'm one of the organisers of the FinTech For Good Summit in London (more info: http://fintechforgoodsummit.com/).

If this topic is interesting to you and it is a discussion you want to get involved in, please do email me on j@greenaway.me. All welcome!

We are building a powerful group of people to advocate for the transformative impact of FinTech in developing economies, and we'd love to start a conversation with you too.

If people are interested in getting involved philanthropically (or otherwise!) in one of the world's largest microfinance organisations -- and supporting low-income entrepreneurs in the developing world -- please do get in contact with me on j@greenaway.me.

I'm based in London, and would love to talk with tech-literate people.

Please don't hesitate!

This is a interesting proposition for Honda, but really not that new. Even the price is not /that/ new.

In fact, this is technology that has been sold at around the same price point in the industrial transportation sector -- think of logistics and lorries -- for quite a while. This is where the majority of the innovation is taking place.

For example, just this week it has been revealed that the UK Govt will likely to announcing tomorrow funding for driverless truck convoys in the North of England. What's the price differential between these intelligent trucks and regular trucks? $0.

In fact, so much innovation is taking place in the industrial sector that just last week Toyota announced that it has hired the FULL workforce of Jaybridge Robotics, a firm that specializes in autonomous industrial vehicles, mainly in the agricultural sector.

If you want to understand the tailwinds in the sector, follow the b2b and industrial segment of the market. Technologies and trends are already starting to filter down.

--

I also want to plug my email newsletter Driverless Weekly (http://driverlessweekly.com) while I'm at it. It's a once-weekly summary of the top news stories in the autonomous vehicles sector.