The drug reduces AHI by 4. It could only cure very mild sleep apnea. Otherwise it seems most useful as an additional treatment with CPAP.

It could also help raise awareness of sleep apnea - try the drug first. Don't see any changes? Ok now try CPAP.

The insight here is that this also still applies to huge enterprise contracts where supposedly more rational decision making should apply.

And I'm thinking - has anyone actually done that for something meaningful?

Replacing salesforce as your crm or replacing Shopify as your e-commerce platform?

I get the hype but AI doesn't remove accountability, it just moves it up. Oh you can do with 1 person what 3 people used to do? Great, that 1 person is now accountable for 3 person's jobs. And people are naturally uncomfortable with that - you need to understand what's going on and be able to investigate / fix. It's different than say, weaving machines replacing jobs because weaving machines were consistent. 1 person could confidently produce what x weavers could before. But AI is not, and that variability in output & quality introduces massive friction.

So as of now, in both software and people, there's a real limit to how much AI can replace because the remaining people still are equally accountable.

It's valued because it's more dense. It grew slowly. Now wood grows fast and it's less dense.

Like this article, that's fine for many things - you just need wood - but not always.

People are responsible for their emotional responses. But you also will be impacted by their reaction. It's unrealistic to assume that people will always act unemotional - they are not Spocks. It makes sense to do some padding / emotional prework. If you don't you will end up actually spending MORE time getting what you want.

Example: you are giving feedback to a peer

Direct: this is a poor user experience. Our customers tell us they want xyz, but this experience is doing the opposite. Can you change it?

Padded: hey can I share some feedback on this experience? (Yes) ok our customers tell us they want xyz, but the experience seems to be doing the opposite. Can you help me understand?

Most people would feel more defensive and closed with the first approach than the second, which will make it less likely they will want to help, listen to you, or take you seriously. They'll just be focused on defending themselves. Whereas with the second, you can start to have an actual discussion.

And it's not just the opener, it's throughout.

Words have power. Two sentences can mean the same thing but can lead to different reactions from people.

Or you might not mention something that significantly influences how something is interpreted.

I just gave this feedback yesterday to a team member. The problem was in a presentation she presented a strong conclusion based on a shaky methodology and people tore into it. She basically was attributing an effect to a change pre/post, not with a holdout.

Her underlying data was sound, she had diligently collected the timing of events and such, but she didn't realize how pre/post methodology could be perceived as shaky.

The whole thing could have been avoided had she said something like "we didn't have a hold out, and all of this effect likely isn't from the cause, but directionally there's smoke - our campaigns performed x before, and y after. So this is worth testing to help validate this hypothesis"

Now their message goes from "This big bad thing happened so I'm going to fix it" to "I don't know exactly what happened, but there's one factor that directionally had an impact so I'm going to test it to validate and can scale from there".

Both essentially say the same thing: there's an opportunity for upside and that's why this is worth testing. But the reaction will be different, so it behooves all of us to be mindful of that.

Kid is making $400k PER MONTH...and he wants to do this for 10 YEARS before he is comfortable retiring. Apparently his FIRE number is $40M.

Everyone's threshold is different and personal. But I think it can reflect a level of anxiety about the cost of living. You aren't OK having $1M or even $10M - you need something far beyond before you feel OK to quit. It's not his fault, more of something the young generations are facing as their parents struggle with the relentless cost of living vs stagnated wages for most except the "laptop class".

-cloth diapers? Awesome

-train early? Awesome

-train later? Awesome

There's trade offs for each, and you are going to figure out what works best for you.

If you want to train later and the diaper companies make more money, that's how a market is supposed to work. They're providing a product you value. So all good!

Sometimes we'll ask market sizing questions. We will say it's a case question, it's to see their thought process, they're supposed to ask questions, state assumptions, etc.

Occasionally we'd get a candidate that just doesn't get it. They respond "oh I'd Google that". And I'll coach them back but they just can't get past that. It's about seeing how you approach problems when you can't just Google the answer, and we use general topics that are easily accessible to do so. But the downside is yes, you can google the answer.

If something changes and suddenly foreign equities start consistently beating out US then capital would flow accordingly. But the US still has a massive advantage from passive flows propping it up in perpetuity.

In the past bad news led to jumpiness and people getting out, including retail. Now you have a massive amount of money that keeps going. So if you jump out..you see that so much money continues to plow in, and price starts going back up. So you come back in so you don't miss out. And on we go.

I think it's very possible passive investing is changing the dynamic, where downturns are more muted. It's overall a good thing but again, as I said above, it feels like it's setting up an even bigger ruin down the road

It's massive and increasing amounts of money that is not price sensitive and keeps growing. There's an underlying bubble message: "the stock market always bounces back, so keep plowing your money into it even when it's down".

Apparently passive funds are 60% of mutual funds / ETFs now https://www.avantisinvestors.com/avantis-insights/has-passiv...

Even more insidious is that this is in part driven by retail who are not paying attention. It's literally the definition of passive, hands off

So at some point, valuations will become increasingly disconnected from fundamentals. Active players will notice and find some way to take advantage. Passive yields will eaten. But at what point will the scales tip and people decide it's a sham and there are better places to park your money? That's when a huge bubble will collapse.

I don't know. Honestly don't know if that will ever happen because I'm not sure what a better investment for average Joe would be than a passive broad stock market index.

Also integration with other services. I just had Gemini summarize the contents of a Google Drive folder and it was effortless & effective

Often times ourselves get the short end, but others find a way to give each their due including themselves

How the truck looks is important. Outside the bottom end of market, it's a status symbol. I got a tundra TRD earlier this year and I've gotten multiple compliments on it because it's a good looking truck.

The F150 lightning looked cheap. The grill is this crappy plastic. And there was no upgrade feature to make it cooler.

If they had the option to make it look like the Raptor or one of their higher end F150s, it may have sold better.